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.

Trinity, rapture, and monotheism are also not in the Bible: but the concepts leading to their doctrine certainly are.

If Catholics cannot grasp that God alone through working of Holy Spirit put the Bible together, it’s all up for grabs: and has been up for grabs during the entire existance of the Roman Catholic Church.

Which would explain their allergorical hermaneutics that led to (drum roll please):

Aberrant non-biblical doctrines of atonement for sin, Mary, saints, celibacy, monastacism, purgatory, indulgences, papal secession, papel infallibility, the Inquisition, the crusades, infant baptism, eschatology, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine that captures the tenor of Scripture in order to systematize orthodox Christian theology. Absent that, it cannot be systematized because of constant changes by subjectivity (private interpretations); depending on who is the Pope is at the time.

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).

I could go on about the misinterpretations of the examples you cite: but it wouldn’t make a difference because of your unsound understanding of hermaneutics.

I would highly recommend reading “Basic Bible Interpretation” by Roy Zuck. It is the text used by many orthodox Christian seminaries. And it’s an easy read.

Mrs. Don-o,

But Scripture is not "God"

Have you not read - "And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD." Douay-Rhiems Revelation 19:13.

Again, the Scirptures testify that the Lord Jesus Christ and Word (Scriptures) are one the same.

What will you say to the Lord Jesus Christ if he asks you why you said His Scriptures was "Just a book"?

“and His efforts, no matter how independent of man are insufficient for salvation without the help of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)”

God cannot save anybody until Luther put together his books and gave the bible to everybody in German. If you don’t read German, sucks to be you.

“Without tradition, God is impotent to provide salvation. He is dependent upon the attitudes and customary habits of man in order for Him to provide salvation.”

God has chosen to appoint Apostles to preach his word, but you don’t have to listen to anything they say, so long as you have a book which contains most of the words that Christ said.

“Since His Word references historical events, they must be embellished with man made RCC tradition.”

Words that contradict what I believe are embellishments. Words that affirm what I believe are historical.

“As in Acts 15, God the Father required nothing more than faith in Christ of the Gentiles to receive salvation and God the Holy Spirit in them.”

That and the Holy Book in German minus a few books nobody cares about written by Luther.

“The tradition of the RCC mandates other burdens including the ordinances of the RCC be followed in order to receive salvation just to help God out so His salvation mechanism might be more perfect.”

Yes, and whatever you do, don’t pray the rosary or you will be damned to hell. Extrabiblical tradition is wrong.

“Even though the priests taught from Scripture, their teaching is now used as a substitute for His Word and considered independent of His Word by the RCC, so they also can add whatever they want and it has as much authority in the RCC as His Word.”

If you see a person claiming to be a prophet of God, who did not have the holy book of Luther, they are devils sent by Satan to deceive.

“The only conclusion the RCC can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth.”

Better to have a one legged stool and rest by faith, not works.

Another refutation of Sola Scriptura is the ending of the Eleventh Resurrection Gospel read during matins, written by St. John the Theologian:

24This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
St John 21: 24-25

Verse 24 mentions oral testimony of the Apostle John, his written record, (both of which are witnesses to what Christ did and said) and then more witnesses to St. John’s testimony - the knowledge and Tradition of the Church. 2/3 of the confirmation has nothing to do with written records, although written records are ok - obviously or we wouldn’t have this Gospel record. : )

Verse 25 is not some weird justification for Mormon tales. It too is testimony - besides the Resurrection - to the fact that Jesus is indeed eternal God. His Being and power and actions are far beyond the confines of our puny, fallen, human understanding, and books.

As any secular history will reveal to you the process of the Church's interpretation of scripture is evidenced by centuries of debate and discussions not some instantaneous thought that merely serves to to satisfy the ego of a frustrated dissenter.

Seriously? Any secular history? What about the Inquisition, the Berserker Bible, the deliberate mistranslation of "Judeans" as "Jews" in the crucifixion story, or the Donative of Constantine? What about the reign of the Borgias? How does the word of God justify castratti? Of course it doesn't, but the Popes at the time said it did.

This discussion is a waste of time. Jesus depended on people to pass on his word. Jesus didn’t believe in writing. Jesus did not give written instructions to those he selected. Jesus could have come to earth is any number of ways. God chose people for the birth and raising of his Son. No where was Scriptura to be found for many years.

Sola Scriptura is just an excuse to justify separation from the Catholic Church. That we ‘all be one’ is possible only within the reach of those with power to bind and loose and who function with Jesus to be with them until the end. Come home to the Catholic Church. Stop kicking against the goad.

For all the "holier-than-thou"s on this thread, keep on arguing:

Luke 9:46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. 47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, 48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. 49 And John answered and said , Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

No it doesn’t. It assumes the ability of the living Christ to shepherd his fallible sheep infallibly through Scripture and the Holy Spirit working in tandem in the lives of genuine believers. Institutional superstructures are nice if you can have them, but what does God need that any man can supply? Nothing. Run whatever arguments you like against Sola Scriptura, but any argument that presumes a weakness in God’s ability to accomplish the building of his own church on his own terms using his own instrumentalities will find no quarter with me.

Inquisition was what? 16th century? What has that got to do with the ecumenical councils that were readily accepted by even Luther.

The donative is what, 8th, 9th century? Where the Pope was given secular, not ecclesiastical authority over the Western Empire?

It’s like coming late to the party and missing all the stuff from before and then claiming that the only thing that happened is the stuff you were around to see.

“Institutional superstructures are nice if you can have them, but what does God need that any man can supply? Nothing.”

God chose to build his Church. How anyone can argue that God choosing to build his own Church equates to God needing to build his Church is beyond me.

You might as well argue that the Great Commission means that God is unable to spread his Word, except through the words of the Apostles.

“John 1:1 states “And the Word was God”. So the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word are one and the same. You cannot split the Lord Jesus Christ and the Scriptures (His inspired Word). To do so is an attempt to destroy His authority and His word. “

Huge assumption here. You think the Word is something written. That doesn’t necessarily follow.

In the beginning was the Word. (God spoke and created the world) And the Word was with God. (The Son, the second person of the Trinity) And the Word was God. (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

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.