“Sola Scriptura”

Show me in the Bible where it says ….

Outline

What is Sola Scriptura What do we as Catholics believe Defense

Jesus quotes the OT “Traditions of men…” The Beroeans “All scripture is inspired…”

Offense Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical Sola Scriptura is Unhistorical Sola Scriptura is Illogical Sola Scriptura is Unworkable Some Tough Questions for Protestants

What is Sola Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture alone," alleges that the Bible – as interpreted by the individual believer – is the only source of religious authority

It is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed.

By this doctrine, which is one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism, a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.

What does the Catholic Church Teach?

We believe that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church.

The Church in turn takes her teaching from the divine Revelation – both

the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as

"Tradition."

The teaching authority or "Magisterium" of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope),

although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to

interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition.

Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or

indirect rule of faith.

Defense wins championships

- Coach Bear Bryant

Jesus Quotes the OT

Matt 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written …

Matt 19:4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that …

This kind of verse can be validly used to prove that the Old Testament has doctrinal authority, but it cannot be used to prove sola scriptura since Jesus does not say that only the Old Testament has doctrinal authority (in which case we would have a sola Old Testament doctrine).

Jesus citing the Old Testament to prove a particular doctrine shows only that Jesus considered that doctrine to be provable by that passage of the Old Testament. It does not show that he considered all doctrines to be provable by the Old Testament or by Scripture in general.

And so it is no surprise when we see Jesus sometimes answering his enemies by appeals to his own authority or other extra-Scriptural sources.

“Traditions of Men”

The argument goes like this. “Because God condemned tradition we should only follow the Bible.”

Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.“

Matt 15:3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

Sacred Tradition

2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

1 Cor 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Tim 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;

2 Tim 2:2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Phil 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

Jesus, Paul, & Jude Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written

Traditions

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).

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.

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.

"As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 and Jude 14 (in which the Apostle cites extra-Scriptural Traditions about Michael and Satan fighting over Moses' body, and conveys a prophecy from Enoch.

The Beroeans

Acts 17:10-11 "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Acts 17:1-9 "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, …some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas; as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews were jealous.

The Beroeans

Those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola Scriptura within the Jewish communities , but the Scriptures were held in sacred regard.

Also, the Jews had no reason to accept Paul's teaching as "divinely inspired" since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed be Jewish, or a development of Judaism, the rabbis would research to see if it could be verified from the Torah.

If anyone could be classified as adherents to sola Scriptura it was the Thessalonians, who were less noble minded from Luke's perspective. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded Paul's new teaching was "unbiblical.“

The Beroeans were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness.“

The Bereans were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture. These Beroean Jews were actually accepting oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, to be equal to Scripture — the actual word of God

“All Scripture is Inspired …”

2 Tim. 3:16–17 "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"

Scripture is profitable or useful (Greek, ophelimos) for teaching, not that it is mandatory for teaching every individual point of theology. A hammer is profitable or useful for driving nails, but that does not mean that nails can be driven only by hammers.

Protestants will try to translate the Greek word “artios” which means “complete” and “exartizo” which means “equipped” as "sufficient."

Greek lexicons typically list it as a third or forth translation of the terms, not as the primary translation, and one cannot appeal to possible meanings of a term as proof that it does mean something in a given text, especially when they are third or fourth string possibilities for its meaning.

All the published Protestant Bible versions (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, etc.) agree that "sufficient" is not the correct translation of these terms in this instance. None of them render the passage "that the man of God may be sufficient, sufficient for every good work." In fact, none of them use "sufficient" as a translation of even one of the two terms.

“All Scripture is Inspired …”

Hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point), is a common Hebrew idiom and a common feature of Paul's letters. For example, in Colossians 1:20 Paul states that God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself

through Christ. But obviously he does not mean absolutely all things or he would have to say that God reconciles Satan and the damned to himself through Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19, Eph. 1:10). Thus Paul's statement that Scripture makes one complete may be no more than a typical Hebraic hyperbole.

Absurdities result if we take this principle that is used to interpret 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and apply it to other texts. The principle is: "If (X) makes you complete then you don't need anything other than (X)“. If we

apply this principle to James 1:4, which states, "And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." we would have to say that we do not need anything other than steadfastness, including Scripture!

One might object that James 1:4 the Greek words are not artios or exartizo. This is certainly true; the words in that passage are teleios and holokleros, which are even stronger Greek terms.

Eph 4:11-15 as an Analogy

(Eph. 4:11–15). "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; …

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.

Material Sufficiency vs. Formal Sufficiency

Even if a single source does give a person all the equipment he needs, this does not teach him how to use the equipment.

In the same way, even if Scripture gives one all the basic equipment one needs to do theology, it may be unclear to the point that one needs to use Apostolic Tradition to arrive at the correct interpretation of it.

The claim that Scripture contains or implies all the basic data for theology is known as the material sufficiency of Scripture.

The position of claiming that Scripture is so clear that one does not need Apostolic Tradition or the Magisterium to interpret it is known as the formal sufficiency of Scripture, which is identical with the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

Thus a Catholic can say that Scripture gives one all the equipment one needs for theology, just not the background one needs to use the equipment.

The best defense is a

good offense.

- Jack Dempsey

Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical

There is no direct teaching of Sola Scriptura in Scripture

Sola Scriptura by its very definition must be found within in the bible. If it is not found in scripture then it cannot be “bible-teaching”. It is a self-refuting principle.

There is no statement that apostolic oral revelation would cease to be a rule of faith (see the previous slide on Sacred Tradition)

Sola Scriptura is Unhistorical

The early Church functioned without the NT The first NT book was not written until probably 51 AD (First Thessalonians)

Even after the NT was written the Church functioned without a complete NT canon The Canon was not determined until 397 AD at the Council of Carthage

The Church Fathers denied Sola Scriptura

The Church councils and early Creeds do not mention Sola Scriptura

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (all "ancient" Churches that can be traced back through apostolic succession) deny Sola Scriptura today

Sola Scriptura is Illogical

Scripture alone does not teach "Scripture alone“.

Scripture alone can't tell us what "Scripture" is. (i.e. What is the NT canon?)

To argue from "fallible knowledge" and historical testimony directly to inspired Scripture is not possible by reason -- Protestants must simply accept this "by faith alone“.

To argue Scripture is "a fallible collection of infallible books“ in nonsensical.

Sola Scriptura is Illogical

It is illogical to argue that the "infallibility of God's special providence" allowed the Church to recognize the NT canon but then limit this infallibility to just the canon.

Scripture alone can't resolve the differences in the OT canon between Protestants and Catholics.

Scripture alone -- being an inanimate object -- can't make any infallible and binding decisions concerning either the canon or any (mis)interpretation -- Scripture is simply assumed by definition to be "self-interpreting" and "self-authenticating" without the need of any infallible Church -- this begs two important questions How do I know the Bible *IS* the Word of God?

How do I know *MY* interpretation of Scripture is correct?

Sola Scriptura is a Circular Position

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.“

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.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings.

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.

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."

Sola Scriptura is Unworkable

Scripture alone is not perspicuous enough to resolve major doctrinal disputes or moral teachings. 2 Peter 3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand,

which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

How can the individual Christian know today who is right?

Sola Scriptura implies nobody is bound to any interpretation but their own since all "churches" and any "traditions“ are fallible.

Sola Scriptura has led to over 30,000 Protestant denominations and sects in contrast to the unity of faith (Eph 4:5) in the Catholic Church.

The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment.

Sola Scriptura is Unworkable

There must necessarily have been several factors in place from the beginning of the Church for Sola Scriptura to be practically possible.

the existence of the printing press

the universal distribution of Bibles

universal literacy

the universal possession of scholarly support materials

the universal possession of adequate time for study

universal nutrition

a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills

Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today.

The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history!

Some Tough Questions

Where do the scriptures list or catalog what texts or books actually belong to the Bible?

Where in the Bible does it actually say, "Only the Bible." or "the Bible alone" or "Bible"?

Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write any of the Gospels or Epistles down?

Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book?

How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?

Some Tough Questions

If God intended for Christianity to be exclusively a "religion of the book," why did He wait 1400 years

before showing somebody how to build a printing press?

If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and

why was he frustrated at the end of his life that "there are now as many doctrines as there are heads"?

How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350

years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

If Christianity is a "book religion," how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when

the vast majority of people were illiterate?

If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral

Tradition as authoritative and as God's Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?

Where in the Bible does it …

Say God created the world/universe out of nothing

Say salvation is attainable through faith alone

Explain how we know that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle

Explain the doctrine of the Trinity

Tell us the name of the "beloved disciple"

Contain the name of the author of the Gospel of Matthew

Tell us Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man

Tell us Jesus Christ is One Person with two complete natures

Tell us Jesus Christ is of the same substance of Divinity as God the Father

www. catholicfidelity.com