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.

“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).”

... It appears your concerns stem from not distinguishing
between the Church and the Kingdom of Heaven. Though it
may “sound to you”, that is quite different that what it
says.

Doctrine is built on what is, not what something sounds
like. Otherwise, anything can become doctrine, as indeed it
has over the centuries.

Again, I am not attempting to tell you what to believe. In
the end, I am responsible for me, so my intent is to discuss
in response to your initial contact. What you are advocating,
without scriptural backing, but based on how things sound
to you, doesn’t cut it for me. While I am human, I am trying
to be intellectually honest and love God with my MIND as
He commands.

“And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven,
and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in
heaven.” Matt. 16:19

... You will look for the word “Church” in vain in Christ’s
word as recorded in Matthew. If you insert them, you are
adding to His words. If you bring your own “sounds like”
to the equation, you are involved in eisogesis.

... Nor does Christ say Peter would have authority in the
Church. It says he will have some kind of authority in
the Kingdom of Heaven to forbid or permit.

... You have never addressed the larger issue:

... If continuing Apostolic authority were so centrally important
to the Church, then why isn’t the following commanded or
recorded in Scripture:

1. The command to choose replacements for the Apostles
as they die or sin (like Judas).
2. The qualifications on who to choose.
3. The method of how to choose and Apostle.

Even deacons and elders have criteria for choosing.
But not Apostles???

Even deacons and elders are named as ongoing offices
of the Church. But not Apostles?

... You are making a truth claim that Apostolic authority
was given to Peter and continues to this day (if I understand
what you are claiming).

So far, you have given me a passage about Christ giving
Peter sub-authority in the Kingdom of Heaven. You have
also reverenced a portion of Isaiah that is similar because
it uses the word key. Somehow Peter got more than one
because he gets keys. It is indeed an interesting parallel,
but is nothing more than that.

... I would add that you also did not respond to the simple fact
that every Apostle remains alive today in Heaven - all 13.

... not one of them was replaced.

For all those reasons, I cannot in good faith and using my
mind to love God, draw a doctrine of Apostolic authority.

Not sure what else I can tell you in answer to the original
reason you posted to me.

If you have any direct scriptural support for Apostolic
authority
that continues and is passed on, please share it. Also,
if you have any examples from the first 100 years after
the death of Christ, I’d like to see them. Beyond that,
it seems to be simply an accretion of some churches.

All the best,
ampu

I don't know why Protestants get upset with Catholics when they claim Sola Scriptura is not part of their belief system. They have every right to claim that when it pertains to their religious tenants.

Most everything we deal with on a daily bases has a controlling authority or rules. Governments, business, religions and even games we play. We all have to follow those rules to have a civil society and/or play fair.

We use to play a couple of board games. Over time others had made changes to the rules to make it more interesting. We all knew we weren't playing the game as the inventor of that game intended.

Sports are much the same. When a question arises as to the legality of a player's actions come in to question, you have to consult the rule book for that sport to make a ruling.

Religion is no different. Each religion has a rule book of sorts provided by the author of that religion as a guide to settle disputes. The Church Jesus founded, uses the Old and New Testament provided to us with the guidance of the Spirit of God.

The Catholic Churches uses some of those Scriptures but as posters on this site and the Catholic published material confirms, the bases for their belief system is a combination of scripture combined with the writings and traditions of the Church fathers' with instructions as to how that Scripture is to be understood. The teachings of those truths are at the discretion of the Magisterium.

Jesus is the head of that church but the Magisterium is the teaching authority. That makes Jesus a figurehead and the Magisterium the source of all truth. Anything you make the source of your truth becomes your god. The Magisterium is the Catholic Church's god.

The Catholics would like you to believe the person who heads the Magisterium is a led by the Spirit of God when he makes these decrees. We have to look at how they decide who this person is from a Catholic site as there is no provision in the Christian Scriptures for such a being or how he is chosen.

Sorry for the size but I felt you need to read the whole process to determine what role, if any, the Spirit of God plays in this.

Popes are elected by the College of Cardinals meeting in Conclave when the Apostolic See falls vacant.

Pope Paul VI significantly changed the rules for conclaves in 1975 when he promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Romano Pontifico Eligendo. He excluded all cardinals 80 years old or over from the conclave and made provision to prevent any bugging of the Sistine Chapel.

It was according to these rules that Albano Luciano, Patriarch of Venice, was elected Pope John Paul I and that a little over a month later, Karol Wojtyla, Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow, was elected Pope John Paul II.

Pope John Paul II himself promulgated a whole new set of rules in 1996 in the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis.

He has not departed radically from the traditional structure. But he has made some significant changes:

if no cardinal has been elected by two-thirds majority after a certain number of ballots, the cardinals may agree by absolute majority (half + 1) to elect the Pope by an absolute majority instead of a two-thirds majority
rather than stay in uncomfortable, makeshift quarters in the Papal Palace, the Cardinals will stay in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, hotel-style accommodation in Vatican City
the only remaining method of electing the Pope is by scrutiny, ie, silent ballot -- the methods of election by acclamation and by committee have been excluded (but were rarely used)
the older cardinals are still unable to enter the conclave, but they are invited to take an active role in the preparatory meetings
the rules on secrecy are tougher

The maximum number of Cardinal Electors allowed at any one time is 120. The Pope cannot raise more than 120 men under 80 to the Cardinalate at any one time. (Of course, being Pope, he can also dispense himself with compliance with that rule! On the last two occasions, the Pope named new cardinals soon after the number of electors fell below 120. There were as high as 135 electors at some stages.) As at April 2005, there are 117 Cardinals eligible to vote in Conclave. (Only 115 of them entered the 2005 Conclave, as two of them were too ill to travel to Rome for the Conclave.)

The Pope dies
When the Pope dies, the Cardinal Camerlengo (currently Eduardo Cardinal Martinez Somalo) must verify the death, traditionally by calling the Pope three times by his name without response (although this is only a ritual &emdash; the death is verified by medical staff). He must then authorize a death certificate and make the event public by notifying the Cardinal Vicar for the Diocese of Rome (currently Camillo Cardinal Ruini). The Camerlengo then seals the Pope's private apartments. He would also arrange for the "ring of the fisherman" and the papal seal to be broken. He then makes preparations for the Papal funeral rites and the novemdieles, the nine days of mourning.

The Interregnum
During the interregnum, it is the Camerlengo who is responsible for the government of the Church. He must arrange the funeral and burial of the Pope. He directs the election of a new pope, assisted by three Cardinals, elected by the College of Cardinals, with three replacement Cardinals elected every three days.

All heads of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia are suspended from exercising their authority during the interregnum (and are expected to resign their posts immediately on the election of the new Pope). The only exceptions to this are the Cardinal Camerlengo, the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, the Major Penitentiary (James Cardinal Stafford), the Cardinal Archpriest of St Peter's Basilica and the Vicar-General for Vatican City (both offices are held by Francesco Cardinal Marchisano). These continue in their posts during the interregnum.

After 15-20 days of "General Congregations", sermons at their Titular Churches on what kind of Pope the Church needs, and mourning for the Pope after his funeral, the Cardinal Electors enter the Conclave to choose which of them will emerge as Holy Roman Pontiff.

The Conclave
The Cardinals must take an oath when they first enter the Conclave that they will follow the rules set down by the Pope and that they will maintain absolute secrecy about the voting and deliberations. The penalty for disclosing anything about the conclave that must be kept secret is automatic excommunication.

The Cardinals all take seats around the wall of the Sistine Chapel and take a ballot paper on which is written "Eligo in summum pontificem" -- "I elect as supreme Pontiff...". They then write a name on it, fold it, and then proceed one by one to approach the altar, where a chalice stands with a paten on it. They hold up their ballot high to show that they have voted, then place it on the paten, and then slide it into the chalice. The votes are then counted by the Cardinal Camerlengo and his three assistants. Each assistant reads the name, reads the name aloud, writes it down on a tally sheet and then passes it to the next assistant. The third assistant runs a needle and thread through the centre of each ballot to join them all together. The ballots are then burned, as well as all notes made. If a new Pope has been elected, the papers are burned with chemicals (it used to be wet straw) to give white smoke. Otherwise, they give off black smoke, so that the waiting crowds, and the world, know whether their new Holy Father will soon emerge from the Sistine Chapel. On 6 April 2005, it was announced that, in addition to the white smoke, the bells of St Peter's Basilica will be rung to signal the election of the new Pope. This will avoid any doubt about whether the smoke is white or black.

Until the conclaves of 1978, each Cardinal was provided a throne and a table and a canopy (or baldachino) over their heads. Paul VI abolished the practice because, with the internationalization of the College of Cardinals, there was simply no room any more. Whereas there were only 80 electors before then, the number had risen to 120. The thrones used to be arranged in two rows, along the wall facing each other. The canopies and thrones symbolized that, during the sede vacante when there is no Pope, the Cardinals all share responsibility for the governance of the Church. To further this symbolism, once the new Pope was elected and announced the name he would use, the other Cardinals would pull on a cord and the canopy would collapse, leaving just the new Pope with his canopy aloft.

To be elected Pope, one Cardinal must receive at least two-thirds of the votes. Except that, under the new rules established by Pope John Paul II, if a certain number of ballots have taken place without any Cardinal being elected Pope, then the Cardinals may then elect by simple majority. This is an important change and may well be the most important change made. In the past, it has often been the case that a particular candidate has had solid majority support but cannot garner the required two-thirds majority, eg, because he is too conservative to satisfy the more moderate Cardinals. Therefore a compromise candidate is chosen, either an old Pope who will die soon and not do much until the next conclave (which is what was intended with John XXIII!) or someone not so hard-line wins support. The difference now will be that if, in the early ballots, one candidate has strong majority support, there is less incentive for that majority to compromise with the cardinals who are against their candidate and they simply need to sit out 30 ballots to elect their man. This may well see much more "hard-line" Popes being elected. There will also be far less incentive for the Cardinals to finish quickly as in the past. After such a long papacy, they may need time to arrive at a strong consensus on what type of papacy the Church now needs. They will also be staying in comfortable lodgings, rather than sleeping in foldaway cots in hallways and offices in the Sistine Chapel. On the other hand, the Cardinals will be reluctant for it to appear as if they are deeply divided, so there will still be an overriding desire to have a quick conclave. (No conclave in the last 200 years has lasted more than 5 days.)

The cardinals vote on the afternoon of the first day, then twice each morning and twice each afternoon. If they have not elected someone within the first three votes, then they may devote up to a day to prayer and discussion before resuming. They may do the same every seven unsuccessful votes after that.

The Cardinals are not permitted any contact with the outside world: no mobile phones, no newspapers or television, no messages or letters or signals to observers. There will be regular sweeps of all relevant areas for listening devices. The Cardinals will for the first time be able to move freely within Vatican City (eg, taking a walk in the Vatican Gardens, or walking from the Domus Sanctae Marthae to the Sistine Chapel). Workers in Vatican City continue to go about their business during the Conclave. If they run into a Cardinal, they are forbidden from speaking to him.

Habemus Papam!
Once a Cardinal has received the required number of votes, the Dean of the College of Cardinals asks him if he accepts election and by what name he wishes to be called as Pope. On giving assent, the Cardinal immediately becomes Pontifex Maximus, the Holy Roman Pontiff. In the unlikely event that the Cardinal chosen is not yet a bishop, the most senior Cardinal present (the Dean or Sub-Dean usually) immediately performs the ceremony to consecrate the new Pope as a bishop.

The Cardinals then pledge their obedience to His Holiness in turn. The Pope vests in his Pontifical clericals (white soutane and skull cap) -- the Italian family business in Rome that makes all the Papal vestments has several different sizes prepared in readiness for His Holiness, no matter what his shape or size!

The Proto-Deacon of the College of Cardinals (currently Cardinal Medina Estevez) then steps onto the main balcony of the Vatican and declares to the World: "Habemus Papam!" "We have a Pope!" and tells the waiting world who has been chosen as the new pope and the name he has decided to take as Pope. His Holiness then appears on the Balcony and delivers his Apostolic Blessing to the city of Rome and to the World.

I have to admit I saw prayer mentioned once. On the other hand, one would like to think that if these people had the mind of Christ as Jesus taught us to have, His choice would be unanimous on the first vote.

I also liked the fact that they can change the rules anytime they want because they and their earthly predecessors wrote the rule book for this religion and have no heavenly rules to restrain them.

I won't go as far as to say the Catholic Church is demonic, I will suggest that if the serpent could deceive Adam and Eve as easily as he did, the church fathers could just as easily been lead astray to promote all sorts of extraneous doctrine which has nothing to do with the simple message of Jesus' mission to bring us to the Father thru His sacrifice.

Everything else is a distraction from that truth.

BVB

“You will look for the word “Church” in vain in Christ’s
word as recorded in Matthew.”

“And I say also unto thee,
That thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my
church.”

“And I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.”

Of course he didn’t say ‘Church’. He says ‘ekklesia’, at least in the Greek we currently possess.

Can we dispose of this nonsense? Please?

If continuing Apostolic authority were so centrally important
to the Church, then why isn’t the following commanded or
recorded in Scripture:

“1. The command to choose replacements for the Apostles
as they die or sin (like Judas).”

Which they did.

“2. The qualifications on who to choose.”

Which they do.

“3. The method of how to choose and Apostle.”

Which they do. All in Acts.

Acts 1:16-17, 20-21

In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers and sisters,the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”

He continues on. Peter, mind you.

“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:

“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’

and,

“‘May another take his place of leadership.’

Continuing:

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

“So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.”

There you go. Question asked, question answered.

Oh, how do you explain if Peter only had heavenly authority, why he’s speaking as the leader of the Apostles here in Acts?

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.