The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map
|
|
The Catholic Church |
North Forest The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map |
| Scripture only? Then why does Protestant teaching have authority outside the Bible? | ||
Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) is the Protestant teaching which states:
But the facts are clear that:
Sola Scriptura itself of necessity requires authority outside the Bible. A few obvious examples:
This article highlights these issues. (Summary of the topic).
Links:
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
Sola Scriptura is the foundation of Protestant teaching. But upon careful reflection it is easy to see that there are inconsistencies and contradictions. For example:
For many of these topics you, the reader, may have already taken a strong stand for one position over the other. But there are many respected teachers and scholars who have taken the other side. Who is right? How can we know the truth?
Commonly it is claimed that these topics are not essentials to the faith, but some of them are rather important. But even the disagreements about the non-essential points are troubling. The fact that we can't properly interpret God's revealed revelation implies that God was not particularly concerned with clearly communicating the truth. But of course this simply can't be.
In this article I demonstrate using biblical references that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible.
Overview | General | Tradition | Misinterpretations | Other Authority | Apostolic Authority | Old Testament is "Scripture" | Bible is Incomplete
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
Overview
The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) teaches that the Bible is the only authority for the Christian faith. This doctrine was devised by the Protestant Reformers and provides the foundation for the multiplicity of Protestant denominations.
Sola Scriptura is typically supported by citing evidence from the Bible itself. But this is a circular argument and is therefore invalid. (The book of Mormon and the Koran make similar claims). But worse, there are many passages which refute Sola Scriptura (the topic of this article).
One problem with Sola Scriptura (and the problem that resulted in my conversion to Catholicism) is that no one can seem to agree on what the Bible even says. Each denomination and each system of Protestant Theology contradicts each other on important points. If all we needed was the Bible then we would be able to agree on what it says.
Those who follow Sola Scriptura may respond by noting that they all agree on the fundamental, foundational, and essential doctrines of the faith as expressed in the creeds. But they should consider that the creeds are merely interpretations of the Bible which were formulated by the Early Church Fathers in ecumenical councils and approved of by the Pope. And the creeds and other doctrinal statements are expressed in other documents besides the Bible.
The creeds are a part of the many traditions of the church herself. Thus, it is tradition that provides the foundational unity of the Protestant denominations rather than Sola Scriptura. Church organizations which don't adhere to these traditions, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons are rightly not even considered as truly Christian because it is tradition which defines Christianity, not the Bible. (Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses claim to base their faith on the Bible).
In this article I highlight some of the most important passages which clearly refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
In attempting to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) from the Bible we quickly discover that:
An example of the problems with Sola Scriptura is that the Bible nowhere teaches what a worship service should be like. But rather than conclude from this fact that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false, Protestants instead assume that they have complete freedom to do whatever they want concerning topics which are not mentioned in the Bible (But the Bible doesn't teach this). This is madness!
The writers of the New Testament didn't feel they needed to address every topic in writing because the church leaders were addressing them in person. These biblical writers didn't know yet about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and they did not do a very good job of providing support for Sola Scriptura in their writings.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself is a doctrine which developed over time. The notion of Sola Scriptura as a foundation for the faith simply did not exist prior to the Protestant Reformation because it was devised by Martin Luther in the early 1500's. This is significant because the notion that doctrines can develop over time is typically rejected by those who base their faith on Sola Scriptura. But Sola Scriptura is itself a developed doctrine.
The flawed assumptions of Sola Scriptura:
Many important topics are simply missing in the New Testament (for example, the specifications for how to conduct church community worship services). Do we really have complete freedom to do whatever we choose in these areas? And shouldn't we consult early church teaching and practice?
The biblical passages which refute Sola Scriptura can be divided into several categories:
What is conspicuously missing in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the need for a single unified interpretation authority such as that provided by the Catholic Church teaching magisterium. Without a Holy Spirit-inspired interpretation people can come up all kinds of conflicting interpretations, which is exactly what we observe in the various Protestant denominations and Protestant systems of theology.
Links:
An Outline of the Catholic Case Against Sola Scriptura | Is Sola Scriptura Reasonable? | Discussion on Sola Scriptura with a Fundamentalist
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
General
The following two Biblical passages effectively refute the notion of Sola Scriptura:
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)
In order to understand the scriptures someone must instruct. But the question is, who is qualified to do so? If the scripture is all that is needed then why do we need people to interpret it and to instruct others? And why do the various Protestant interpretations contradict? If there is to be an authoritative interpretation it must be from a single Spirit-inspired source and that source is the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Pet 1:19,20)
Who is qualified to interpret? The word we of verse 19 refers to the apostles and those they pass the message on to via ordination. 2 Peter 2:1-2 introduces the topic of false teaching and heresy which the early church fought. It was the validly-ordained church leaders who were leading the fight against heresy. The Protestant Reformation broke this chain of ordination and itself taught heretical doctrines as the Council of Trent affirmed.
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
Tradition
There are passages in the New Testament which indicate that verbal instruction and teaching are valid. This contradicts Sola Scriptura which teaches that only the scripture is authoritative. Certainly the writers of the New Testament didn't believe that.
Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. (2 John 1:12)
This verse should shock those who follow Sola Scriptura. Here we have a case where John prefers to share information verbally rather than write it down. Presumably whatever these "many things" are, they are not in the Bible. How can we learn about them except by tradition?
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. (Eph 3:5)
This Divine Revelation was not made known by scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) but was revealed to the apostles.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thess 5:21)
The criteria we must use for testing all things is goodness, not scripture. This contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which claims that scripture is the final authority.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thess 2:15)
Oral traditions have authority.
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
Misinterpretations
Certain biblical passages are presented as having a meaning which they simply do not have.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Tim 3:16)
This passage is typically used to "prove" the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but it doesn't say anything about "only scripture."
The word "scripture" refers to the Old Testament.
All these things are true about scripture (both Old and New Testaments) but the Church also has teaching authority.
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
Other Authority
There are biblical passages that indicate that there are other authorities besides the scripture.
Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? (James 4:5)
He quotes something that is not in the New Testament and calls it scripture. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is without foundation.
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God... (1 Pet 4:11)
We should preach the words (plural) of God. This is not necessarily the Bible. God has other words besides the Bible. His words are not limited to the words in the Bible.
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
Apostolic Authority
It is the apostles who are the head of the institutional church. They have the authority to (1) teach correct doctrine, and (2) interpret scripture.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. (2 Pet 1:19)
In this passage it is the apostles who possess the reliable prophetic message, NOT the scripture. The message is what is important whether communicated via scripture or tradition.
Who is qualified to interpret? The word we refers to the apostles and those they pass the message on to via ordination.
I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. (1 John 2:14)
Fundamentalists often equate the phrase "word of God" with the Bible. But it is the gospel message and the holy living of Christians which is the "word of God," not the Bible.
Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. (1 John 2:24)
Notice that they "heard from the beginning" before there was a Bible. This demonstrates that the oral message is valid. Notice that John doesn't repeat what they heard, he merely assumes they know it or that they will continue to hear it from validly-ordained church leaders.
Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. (2 John 1:12) I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee. (3 John 1:13)
His communication was verbal, not written. If Sola Scriptura were correct there would be nothing more to say: the written word would be sufficient.
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
Old Testament is "Scripture"
The passages which refer to "scripture" are speaking to the Old Testament. There is no passage which calls the New Testament "scripture."
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (Rom 15:4)
Scripture = Old Testament.
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1 Cor 4:6)
This passage is specifically referring to the Old Testament.
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
Bible is Incomplete
There are many important issues in church life about which the Bible is silent. There is no good reason to assume that this means that we can invent whatever information we wish to fill these gaps. Rather, it is more reasonable to assume that the validly-ordained church leaders are guided by the Holy Spirit to provide this information. There is also the precedent from the Old Testament. It would be more reasonable to model church life and practice based on Old Testament Israel in the absence of clear biblical instruction to the contrary.
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (1 Cor 15:2)
Not everything that Paul preached to them was written down yet he considers this information to be essential to salvation. How are we to hear about all of this just from the Bible?
The Catholic Church | North Forest | Site Map | Top of page
John Shepard
© Copyright 2007
Scripture only? Then why does Protestant teaching have authority outside the Bible?
email: js16@northforest.org
http://www.northforest.org/CatholicApologetics/SolaScruptura.html
Revised: July 4, 2004
