A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Catholic Fidelity.Com ^ | Dave Armstrong

[GonzoII]

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

By Dave Armstrong

1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible

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.

2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also

"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).

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word

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.

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions

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.

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem

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).

6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition

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.

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in 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).

8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"

"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."

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position

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.

 

[Cronos]

Actually, no, Jesus is the source of all truth. Just as the Supreme Court does not create the constitution but defend it, so too the Magisterium only defends the Truth , the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Popes are elected by the Cardinals -- it is believed that they are directed by the Holy Spirit, just as the authors of the Gospel were directed by the Holy SPirit who was the real author. No one else can explain how in 1978 a Polish pope was elected who brought down communism. This was the hand of God behind the Cardinals.

Any other method you would describe is akin to the choosing of the Dalai Lama -- incidently the Dalai Lama wants to change that now.

[Cronos]

What are you talking about? God was the principal author in the sense the He directed the writing. He didn't sit down with pen and paper, but humans did -- or do you believe otherwise?. Hence scripture is infallible, but not ALL the Word of God -- becuase the Word is much more than just the scriptures. Hence limiting the Word to just the written Word is trying to put boundaries on our boundless God. Don't do that

[Cronos]

ampu :you will look for the word "church" in vain"

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

that is hilarious -- ampu, what do you think is the word for ekklesia in French? Eglise. in Polish? Kościoł etc. Why do you think that it should be in KJV English throughout the world and even before English developed?

[Cronos]

thank you — wishing you a wonderful New Year and Wedding Anniversary!

[boatbums]

It must not contradict scripture. If anything contradicts scripture it should be junked.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what we mean by sola scriptura??? The Bible, the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, is the measuring stick of what constitutes the doctrines of the Christian faith. This by no means says that tradition cannot count for something - and I have never heard anyone say that it doesn't - it just simply means that it is the standard that all doctrine should be held to. Period.

[boatbums]

The verse says there were also many things that Jesus “did” it does not say many things he “taught”. I am confident that all that we need to know concerning the Christian faith is contained within the Holy Scriptures we have. God made sure.

[Cronos]

If you agree that Holy Tradition can stand for something as long as it does not contradict scripture, which is infallible and was birthed from it, then we have no argument.

The first statement of this article says 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

If you say you have never "heard" anyone say it doesn't, I ask -- haven't you "read" anyone -- especially here on the RF, members of the PCA or OPC say that?

[boatbums]

If you say you have never "heard" anyone say it doesn't, I ask -- haven't you "read" anyone -- especially here on the RF, members of the PCA or OPC say that?

First of all, I wish you a Happy New Year!

What I have read and what I hold as well, is that saying "tradition" along with the "teaching Magesterium" are to be held at the same level of esteem as Scripture, is not correct. Only the Scriptures that are given to us by God should be held as infallible. And, like you stated, all doctrines of the Christian faith should be founded in Scripture. It is fine with me for churches to have their own traditions, but when they claim that their traditions are "of the faith" - de fide - and they cannot be proven from Scripture, then they cannot demand Christians to hold to them.

[Cronos]

A blessed New year to you too.

All Holy Tradition is based on scripture, yes, because scriptrue was birthed from Holy Tradition

Also, do note what I said "if it CONTRADICTS scripture" - I do not limit my God, the Word of God just to the written word and be presumptuous enough to say SOLA scriptura.

[bkaycee]

I never said, nor has the Catholic Church that we can be saved by good works alone. We can do nothing alone. Read what James said, that is the Catholic understanding of faith and works.

I dont know anyone who says that Catholics are saved by works alone.

As I have heard over and over Catholics are saved by faith and works, although what is meant by Faith to a Catholic is different to a protestant.

What is your definition of Faith?

[bkaycee]

Hence scripture is infallible, but not ALL the Word of God -- becuase the Word is much more than just the scriptures. Hence limiting the Word to just the written Word is trying to put boundaries on our boundless God. Don't do that

Do we have ALL the Word of God available to us?

[Zuriel]

So you deny that oxygen depletion affects the mind.

Happy New Year!

[Zuriel]

**God did die on the cross.**

FRiend, you’re stuck in man-made, ‘mother of God’, theology.

God is a Spirit. All the nukes in the world cannot kill even a portion of his Spirit. It’s a domain we can hardly comprehend. But the flesh of Christ was made, which marks a beginning. God is from everlasting to everlasting. No beginning, no ending. No weakening......ever, let alone dying for even a second.

**God wasn’t in Christ. God is Christ!**

God is Christ, only if you’re referring to the Father dwelling in him. Most notably in John chapters 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 16, Jesus Christ spoke a great deal about ‘the Father’ in him, teaching him all things, telling what to say, doing the ‘works’, etc. When speaking of God dwelling in himself, the Christ calls him the Father, not the Holy Ghost. Why? Read on.

That’s because it pleased the Father that IN him (Christ) should ALL fulness dwell (Col. 1:19). Not just a portion of the Spirit of God dwells in him, but the fulness of God the Father. That’s how the Christ has all power.

The tabernacle of flesh, in which God appeared to man, could not survive the crucifiction, but God raised him up (Acts 2:32; 10:40; 13:37; 17:31, all point this out without mentioning any ‘separate and distinct persons of God’ performing this miracle).

God almighty is one, yet cannot be measured. That’s the great mystery that man can’t grasp.

Here’s a riddle for you: Why is the term ‘God the Father’ found in scripture, but the term ‘God the Holy Ghost’(Spirit) not; and why is Jesus Christ never referred to as ‘God the Son’, but ‘the Son of God’?

It is SO simple. God the Father, the only God there is, gives of his Spirit (Luke 11:13; Acts 5:30-32), and the same Father dwells in his Son and his Son in him.

[BenKenobi]

“God is a Spirit. All the nukes in the world cannot kill even a portion of his Spirit. It’s a domain we can hardly comprehend. But the flesh of Christ was made, which marks a beginning. God is from everlasting to everlasting. No beginning, no ending. No weakening......ever, let alone dying for even a second.”

Christ, who is fully God and fully Man died on the cross. If you mean that God the Father has never died, then I agree.

But Christ is God and died on the cross, so God died on the cross. This is non-negotiable. He’s also flesh, and remains so, being bodily resurrected in heaven.

It’s got absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism, everything to do with Christinity.

“God is Christ, only if you’re referring to the Father dwelling in him.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong. God is Christ, and Christ is God.

“That’s because it pleased the Father that IN him (Christ) should ALL fulness dwell (Col. 1:19). Not just a portion of the Spirit of God dwells in him, but the fulness of God the Father. That’s how the Christ has all power.”

Yes, that’s because Christ IS God.

“The tabernacle of flesh, in which God appeared to man, could not survive the crucifiction, but God raised him up (Acts 2:32; 10:40; 13:37; 17:31, all point this out without mentioning any ‘separate and distinct persons of God’ performing this miracle).”

Agreed. However, Christ is fully God, and when he died on the cross, so did God. This is a core Christian teaching.

“Here’s a riddle for you: Why is the term ‘God the Father’ found in scripture, but the term ‘God the Holy Ghost’(Spirit) not; and why is Jesus Christ never referred to as ‘God the Son’, but ‘the Son of God’?”

If you deny that the Son is God, then you aren’t a Christian. Something else for sure, but not a Christian.

“It is SO simple. God the Father, the only God there is, gives of his Spirit (Luke 11:13; Acts 5:30-32), and the same Father dwells in his Son and his Son in him.”

Nope, sorry.

The Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God and the Son is God.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“that is hilarious — ampu, what do you think is the word for ekklesia in French?

Actually, if you read the exchange, I was quoting one single
verse that another had quoted. That verse did not contain the
word church in english or ekklesia in greek. In responding,
this brother added an additional verse to try to prove his
point. It was a common occurrence of shifting ground.

Having studied Greek, translated portions of scripture and
read from the Greek manuscripts, I am familiar with how
the Church was referred to. :-)

best,
ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Cronos, thank you for taking time to quote some sources
from after 100AD. This, unfortunately, is not what I
was seeking. It is, however, interesting stuff.
ampu

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Cronos, thank you for taking time to quote some sources
from after 100AD. This, unfortunately, is not what I
was seeking. It is, however, interesting stuff.
ampu

[Jvette]

The Bible tells us that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Hebrews 11 is a great discourse on faith and the faithful that came before, our ancestors as they are called. Faith is not passive, faith compels action. Each ancestor acted upon faith and in that action revealed and confirmed their faith.

That is what the Catholic believes. That faith compels one to action, to good works. They go hand in glove. One may do good works without faith, but one cannot have faith without good works.

[Iscool]

The verse says there were also many things that Jesus “did” it does not say many things he “taught”. I am confident that all that we need to know concerning the Christian faith is contained within the Holy Scriptures we have. God made sure.

Exactly...Obviously Jesus continued to heal people; probably of broken legs, stab wounds, pneumonia, toothache, etc...He did however teach us in the scriptures He provided and preserved everything we need to know for salvation...

[sr4402]

Hence limiting the Word to just the written Word is trying to put boundaries on our boundless God. Don't do that

That is how you all are attempting control over believers. Once man can write Scriptures, then he can control others. Not only that, but in the process, overwrite Scripture. And I don't think God is pleased with that at all.