What did the Early Church believe about the authority of Scripture? (sola Scriptura)

The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.

Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.

Consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature (as being inspired by God) the ultimate authority for the Church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.

Where things went wrong - The Council of Trent denied the sufficiency of Scripture

The Council of Trent in the 16^th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.

This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent. It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism today. Some agree with Trent and some do not.

The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists held to sola Scriptura

The view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the Early Church. The Early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.

The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

Irenaeus and Tertullian held to sola Scriptura

It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.

Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.

In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows:

Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a Tradition on issues of doctrine that are not found in Scripture.

Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:

Cyril of Jerusalem held to sola Scriptura

The fact that the early Church was faithful to the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4^th century). He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.

He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This fact confirms that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of Scripture from these lectures.

"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". [6]

Notice in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions, which they are now receiving. From what source is this tradition derived? Obviously it is derived from the Scriptures, the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone.

It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.

Gregory of Nyssa held to sola Scriptura

The Early Church operated on basis of sola Scriptura

These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:

Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.

Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.

Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.

Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations. By the end of the 3^rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.

Customs and Practices as Apostolic Oral Tradition

It is true that the Early Church also held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church.

An example of this is found early on in the 2^nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition.

Which one is correct? There is no way to determine which, if either, was truly of Apostolic origin. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a certain Church Father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the Apostles.

There are numerous practices in which the Early Church engaged which it believed were of Apostolic origin (listed by Basil the Great), but which no one practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.

The Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to Tradition as an authority is not valid.

The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle".

Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring.

Sungenis edited a work recently on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. His book is 627 pages in length. Not once in the entire book does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men! Yet, we are told that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound, therefore, to submit to this church which alone possesses the fullness of God's revelation from the Apostles.

What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed “apostolic Tradition”. The simple reason that they do not do so is because it does not exist. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?

We defy anyone to list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians. The only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the Apostles is the written Scriptures.

. This principle was adhered to by the Reformers. They sought to restore it to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition.

The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as Tradition that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian Church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of Apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.

Just as the Early Church Fathers repudiated that teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we.

What does the Bible teach about sola Scriptura (final authority of Scripture)? Answer

Endnotes

I don't have time to attack every fallacy in this argument (WAY too many), I'll just start with the opening sentence...

The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.

Laughable. Class, please open your Good Books to John 21:25 and read along with me (we'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And 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." The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

Fundamental to this argument is the question "What is the ultimate authority? What is 'the pillar and ground' of the Truth?" My Protestant friends (and this article) would say it is Scripture. And yet Scripture says something else... 1 Tim 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. Scripture points to the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth! Why? Because Christ didn't come to give us a book to read (no matter how Good it is), He Himself declared that He came to give us His Church. His Church can not contradict Scripture... but it does have teaching authority to explain and expound.

Saying that the early post-Apostolic Church followed Sola Scriptura is laughable on its face to anyone who has actually read Scripture. The Apostles were never commanded by Christ to write down what they had learned for the ages to come. They were to teach, preach and to baptize. They didn't bring copies of Bibles for every hotel, they brought the traditions given them by Christ (2 Thess 3:6). In every town, they preached first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. Why? Because the Jews had their Scriptures to verify the truth of their teaching. The Old Testament is all about Christ... when you know what you're reading. There was not yet a New Testament for proof-texting beyond that.

Lastly, if the Scriptures as understood by the Apostles and their successors (the Old Testament) were their only basis for understanding Christ and His Kingdom... by what authority did the Apostles pronounce that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised (Acts 15)? I would appreciate it if some Biblical scholar could show me their Scriptural basis in the Old Testament... You won't find it there. The Apostles taught from the authority given them by Christ... the authority of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

G.K. Chesterton said that heresy isn't just a falsehood... it is elevating a truth to being the whole truth. My Protestant friends have elevated Scripture to Sola Scriptura... and it is an unbiblical fallacy.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Scripture and Tradition

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).

Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

Newman’s argument

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

What is Tradition?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Handing on the faith

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.

"Commandments of men"

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The indefectible Church

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea4.asp

Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles

Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") holds that every point of Christian theology-everything pertaining to "faith and practice"-must be verifiable from the Bible alone. This is expressed by the old Protestant slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological").

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) to have binding authority in how Scripture is to be interpreted. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe, then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority.

A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture is, regardless of what anyone or everyone else says. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role that Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology should do no more than suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual is put in the position of being his own theologian.

Of course, the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way. (There are many godly grannies who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians.) Not only is the average Christian disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, if he tries to do so and arrives at conclusions different than those of his church's leadership, he will quickly discover that his right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation.

Protestant pastors from the time of Luther and Calvin have realized that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to interpret Scripture, they must prohibit the exercise of this right to others, lest their group be torn apart by strife. It is the failure to prohibit the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over twenty thousand Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press World Christian Encyclopedia.

These churches are divided over questions like: What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Is it needed? Is it for infants? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government?

The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, each teaching different doctrines on key theological issues, is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of sola scriptura. But even beyond this, there is a set of practical presuppositions that sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine but a fatal blow to it.

If God had intended the average Christian to use sola scriptura as an operating principle, then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. If it turns out that the average Christian in world history could not have implemented it, then it must not be God's plan.

In fact, the average Christian in each age of Church history would have to be able to use sola scriptura, since Jesus promised that his Church would never pass out of existence but would be present throughout the rest of history (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).

If each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean-even taking into consideration the interpretations of others-then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study. A non-thorough study is a dangerous thing, as any Protestant apologist warning one against cults and their Bible study tactics will tell you. The universal application of sola scriptura therefore presupposes the printing press and the mass manufacturing of books and of the Bible in particular.

Without mankind's ability to mass-produce copies of the Scriptures for individual Christians to interpret, the doctrine of sola scriptura could not have functioned. Christians in the days before the printing press had only limited access to the texts via the Scripture readings at Mass and the costly, hand-made copies of the Bible kept on public display in parishes. But these did not allow the average believer the lengthy, detailed access to Scripture that he needed to serve as his own theologian.

It is often noted, even by Protestant historians, that the Reformation could not have blossomed as it did in the early 1500s if the printing press had not been invented in the mid-1400s. It took a couple of generations for the idea of printing to make its mark on the European imagination. It was in this heady atmosphere, the first time in human history when dozens of ancient works were being mass produced and sold, that people suddenly thought, "Hey! We could give copies of the Bible to everyone! Everyone could read the Scriptures for themselves!"

Moreover, the printing press not only allowed the early Protestants to mass-produce the Bible, it meant they had a means to disseminate their own works about what the Bible meant. In the minds of those who wished to oppose historic Christian theology, this prospect led very quickly to the idea sola scriptura, as it provided a justification for their own desire to depart from orthodoxy.

Besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes a universal distribution system of books and of the Bible in particular. It is no good for enough copies of the Bible to exist if they can't be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian.

Throughout the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been impossible even in what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the "developed world" was undeveloped. The political systems, economies, and travel infrastructure that make the mass distribution of Bibles possible today simply did not exist for three-quarters or more of Church history. And even now we cannot get enough Bibles into many lands due to economic and political restraints, as the fund-raising appeals of Bible societies and their stories of Bible-smuggling show us.

Just as there was no way to get the books to the peasants, there was no way the peasants could have afforded them in the first place. This would have required a cash-based economy, and there just wasn't enough cash in circulation.

A barter-based economy would never work with mass-produced and distributed goods. Imagine a medieval peasant giving a printer ten thousand chickens for one thousand Bibles. Even if the printer agreed to the deal, the peasant would have the daunting task of keeping the chickens alive and fed and transported from the time he relinquished them to the time the printer received them.

Sola scriptura also presupposes universal literacy. If the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean, then obviously he must be able to read. Having someone read the Bible to him is not sufficient. Not only would the reader be able to do it only occasionally (since there would be many illiterates to read to), the person who wishes to be his own theologian needs to go over the passage multiple times, looking at its exact wording and grammatical structure. He needs to be able to quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic, and he needs to be able to record his insights so he doesn't forget them and so he can keep the evidence straight in his mind.

Anyone who is to make a study Scripture and decide what it teaches must possess adequate scholarly reference works, or else he must be able to read the texts in the original languages. For example, does the Greek word for "baptize" mean "immerse" or does it have a broader meaning? Does the biblical term for "justify" mean to make righteous in only a legal sense or sometimes in a broader one?

He must also have commentaries to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations. No one person is going to be able to think of every possible interpretation of every Scripture passage that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine.

No Protestant pastor (or at least no pastors who are not extreme anti-intellectuals) would dream of formulating his views without such support materials, and he thus cannot expect the average Christian to do so either. Indeed, the average Christian is going to need such support materials even more than a trained pastor.

If the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, he must have adequate leisure time. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he doesn't have time to do this, especially in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat, sleep, and recreate.

Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time; nobody becomes adept in the Scripture by reading the Bible only on Sundays. Protestants stress this to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.

If the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of critical thinking skills in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not.

As anyone who has ever tried to teach basic logic to college students or read and grade their persuasive essays can tell you, that level of critical thinking does not exist in the average, literate, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, medieval peasant. This is especially true when it comes to the abstract concepts and truth claims involved in philosophy and theology. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes a high level of universal education in critical thinking skills-in fact, it presupposes a level of critical thinking skill that does not exist in the average college student today.

In summary, sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) a cash-based economy, (4) universal literacy, (5) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (6) the universal possession of adequate time for study, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills.

Needless to say, this group of conditions was not met in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not met through the main course of Church history, and is not met even today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history.

It is thus hard to think of sola scriptura as anything but the theory spawned by a group of Renaissance-era dilettantes-people who had an interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had plenty of leisure time for study, who had plenty of scholarly support materials, who had good reading skills, who had access to Bible-sellers, and most importantly, who had printed Bibles.

The average Christian today-even the average Christian in the developed world-does not fit that profile. Much less did the average Christian in the early centuries. What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God's plan.

James Akin is a senior apologist at Catholic Answers and a contributing editor of This Rock.

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.