Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Chandler50]

During the course of my discussions with Protestants over Catholic doctrine, it has become clear that until the concept of sola scriptura (Bible alone) is refuted, we will be in a state of perpetually frivolous debate. In this blog post, I will pose my top five reasons why the Bible cannot be the only authority for Christians. The following arguments are based solely on the writings of early church fathers (only one of whom wrote post-biblical canonization), interpretations of scriptural text that has spanned the centuries, and of God-given common sense. Enjoy!

1. The Bible Never Claims to be the Sole Authority​

If Jesus intended written scripture to be the sole source of authority for His followers after His ascension, it stands to reason that He or the apostles would have made that claim. More, the early church fathers would have mentioned this substantial claim in their writings. Rather, what we find is that Jesus, the apostles, and the early church fathers display a perfect blend of tradition and scriptural authority. I know what you're thinking, "But the Bible does say it is authoritative!" Well, let's take a look at the top verses utilized to support this claim.

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." - (2 Timothy 3:16-17 - NRSVCE)

In this passage, Paul wrote about the importance of scripture, but he did not state or imply that scripture alone is our authority. He stated that scripture is "...useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." This is true, but in no way inflated scriptural authority or minimized the authority of tradition.

"These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica, for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so." - (Acts 17:11 - NRSVCE)

Again, Paul showed that scripture is an excellent tool for growth and learning about God, yet he never wrote that scripture is our only authority.

I hate to insult your intelligence, but I have heard of people utilizing the book of Revelation to defend sola scriptura. The verses are:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." - (Revelation 22:18-19 - NRSVCE)

The Bible is not a single book, it is a compilation of 73 individual books and letters. Therefore, when John wrote that "... if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy...", he specifically referred to his book of Revelation, not the entire Bible. The aforementioned passages do uphold that scripture is inspired and authoritative; however, they do not explicitly or implicitly advocate for sola scriptura.

2. The Bible Endorses Holy Tradition
​

Unlike sola scriptura, the authority of holy tradition is thoroughly stated throughout the New Testament. Some examples are:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. - (1 Corinthians 11:2 - NRSVCE)

"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter." - (2 Thessalonians 2:15 - NRSVCE)

"Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us." - (2 Thessalonians 3:6 - NRSVCE)

"So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ." - (Romans 10:17 - NRSVCE)

"We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers."- (1 Thessalonians 2:13 - NRSVCE)

From these passages, it is clear that the writers of the New Testament held holy tradition (oral teachings) at the same level as holy scripture. This makes sense, because scripture is simply recorded portions of what was taught by the Jesus and the apostles. In fact, the highest endorsement of holy tradition comes from Jesus Himself:

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. - (Mark 16:15 - NRSVCE)

The Greek word used here for 'proclaim' is 'kérussó', which means to preach, herald, or proclaim in a public manner. Jesus did not tell his apostles to immediately record the good news; He told them to proclaim the good news verbally in public settings. The recording of the good news came afterwards, but was not necessary to follow Jesus because they had holy tradition.

Remember, holy tradition is everything taught by the apostles that had been passed down through apostolic succession. The holy scriptures are the written accounts of these apostolic teachings; however, there are many oral teachings that have been safeguarded through a continuous succession of the apostles.

I know someone is thinking, "What about Mark chapter seven?" Let's take a look:

"You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.” Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God— then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.” - (Mark 7:8-13 - NRSVCE)

In this passage, Mark explicitly states that he is referring to human tradition. Whenever any tradition explicitly goes against the God's will, then it is human tradition and utterly sinful. Holy tradition is not the same as human tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains holy tradition as:

This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes." (DV 8 § 1) "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer." (DV 8 § 3.)" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 78) Holy tradition does not trump scripture, they compliment each other in equal unity because they stem from the same source.

3. The Early Church Fathers Never Advocated for Sola Scriptura
​

In my research, I have found many articles quoting church fathers in an attempt to prove sola scriptura. One example I read quoted the following passage from Irenaeus of Lyons:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." (Against Heresies, 3.3.1)

If you cherry-pick a paragraph from an entire book you can give the impression that Irenaeus of Lyons was certainly advocating for sola scriptura. Just for fun, let's take a step back and read this passage's chapter title.

"Chapter I. - The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit. They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth." (Against Heresies, 3.3.1)

The purpose of this chapter was not to advocate for sola scriptura, rather to debunk a common heresy at the time that the apostles wrote scripture prior to obtaining the power of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, claiming that the apostles did not have the Holy Spirit within them prior to recording the scriptures was and is heresy; so Irenaeus wanted to quickly and effectively debunk this misunderstanding by emphasizing that everything the apostles wrote is true and can be trusted as a "pillar of our faith." (Against Heresies, 3.3.1)

This is interesting, I wonder what we will find if we take another step back and read the titles of the next three chapters.

"Chapter II.-The Heretics Follow Neither Scripture Nor Tradition." (Against Heresies, 3.3.2)

"Chapter III.-A Refutation of the Heretics, from the Fact That, in the Various Churches, a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up." (Against Heresies, 3.3.3)

"Chapter IV.-The Truth is to Be Found Nowhere Else But in the Catholic Church, the Sole Depository of Apostolical Doctrine. Heresies are of Recent Formation, and Cannot Trace Their Origin Up to the Apostles." (Against Heresies, 3.3.4)

Irenaeus of Lyons labeled people who did not follow tradition or believed in apostolic succession as heretics, plain and simple. The title of chapter two clearly states that heretics "Follow Neither Scripture Nor Tradition." (Against Heresies, 3.3.2) Irenaeus placed scripture and tradition on the same level and clearly advocated that some churches had legitimate claims to apostolic succession.

A couple of articles I read argue that Irenaeus condemned the belief that authority solely originated from spoken word. It is precisely true that Irenaeus condemned the belief that authority solely derived through spoken word (referred to as 'vivâ voce', translated to 'with living voice'), because it is a heresy. Let's look at the first two passages of chapter two that contains Irenaeus' condemnation of 'vivâ voce:

"1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition." (Against Heresies, 3.3.2)

The Catholic Church has never taught that authority is based on tradition alone. Our authority derives from an equal unity of holy scripture and holy tradition. More, the fact that Irenaeus utilized holy tradition as an authority immediately debunks the concept of sola scriptura and the aforestated argument. I digress, here are some other quotes from early church fathers regarding the importance of holy tradition:

Clement of Alexandria​

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escape the blessed tradition." (The Stromata, 1:1)

St. Epiphanius of Salamis​

“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 )

St. John of Chrysostom​

"Verse 15. So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.

Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken." (Commentary of 2 Thessalonians 2:15)

St. Basil the Great​

"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more." (On the Holy Spirit, 27)

The amount of evidence for holy tradition from the early church fathers is astounding; anyone who believed otherwise was labeled a heretic (one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine). They understood that the apostles simply could not write everything down (ref. John 21:24-25).

4. Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit
​

From a purely logical standpoint, anything that consistently yields negative results is bad. This concept is not just logical, but an explicit teaching of Jesus, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit." (Matthew 7:18 NRSVCE) Therefore, if the concept of sola scriptura is 'good' then it should yield 'good' results; however, this is not the situation. Sola scriptura has led to tens of thousands of divisions within the church which is emphatically against scripture. Paul writes:

"I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, 'I follow Paul,' or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas,' or 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"
- 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (ESV)

Does this sound familiar? I follow Paul, I follow Cephas (Peter), what about I follow Luther, I follow Calvin, I follow Arminius, I follow Wesley. We are flawed and thus make the same mistakes over and over. We must heed the words of Paul by removing divisions in Christ's church and "...be united in the same mind and the same judgement." (1 Corinthians 1:10 ESV) I cannot fathom how the concept of sola scriptura, whose fruits has consistently defied scripture, could be the intention of God.

5. Sola Scriptura is Simply Not a Feasible Concept
​

When you get right down to it, the concept of sola scriptura is not feasible. I have three reasons for this assertion.

1. The Bible was not canonized until the late 300's. How did people know how to live prior to the canonization of the Bible? Did they run rampant and completely fail to adhere to God's commands? The answer is no; at least no more than they do today. Christians had holy tradition to guide their actions and beliefs.

2. Even though the Bible is available immediately to anyone who wishes to read it, we still end up with incorrect interpretations and assumptions. This results in thousands of denominations (as discussed earlier) and is explicitly against scripture. Peter knew that improper interpretation of scripture could happen and so stated, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:20-21 NRSVCE) I must emphasize that 'prophecy' does not mean 'to predict the future' in this context, it means to 'communicate and enforce revealed truth'. So to communicate and enforce revealed truth within the scripture requires men and women filled with the Holy Spirit, not by one's own reading. This implies the importance of one unified church that interprets scripture.

3. At the end of the book of Saint John, he clearly indicates that written scripture is true; however, not exclusive of all teachings. He writes:

​

"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." - John 21:24-25 (NRSVCE)​

Conclusion
​

Utilizing all facets available, I find it undeniable that Jesus, the apostles, and the early church fathers taught and understood that our authority derives from both holy tradition and holy scripture. There is simply no evidence for the claim that the Bible alone is sufficient for our authority. If we truly believe that God is living and active in our lives today, then limiting His divine revelation to a group of seventy-three written works outside of His explicit mandate is heresy. God's word is not stagnant and neither is his authority; they are living and active, revealed through holy tradition and holy scripture.

 

[RC1970]

How do we know when "the tradition" is from God, or is Gods will, and not from someone else?

 

[StephanieSomer]

Experience demands that there be SOME final authority. If "tradition" or some "head" says or does anything which contradicts clear Scriptural teaching, which DO you follow? If you say "tradition" then the "head" AND the Scripture take a back seat, and the inference is that they are not as reliable as "tradition". Likewise, if you say the "head", then the other two are suspect of possible error. In any organization, if there is no FINAL authority, there is chaos. The reason that Protestants claim the Scripture as the final authority is because it is the only one of the three which has not changed, and will not change.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I find another issue with the common application of sola scriptura is that it takes the bible and turns it into a jigsaw puzzle and makes all passages equally true . what is missing from this perspective is that Jesus taught that there are greater commandments and weightier matters .. thus illustrating that each scripture is not weighted the same as the next in terms of inspiration. Also when the summation of texts are counted as votes for concepts .. the core concept of mutual respect, love, unconditional love, agape, gets sidelined by moralizing .. when Love is a higher standard and is identified as "God" in the text ..

So in my observation of Sola Scriptura is that it cultivates fleshly interpretations of the bible and invites the wrath of man to attempt to amount to the righteousness of God when anyone disagrees with the jigsaw puzzle. It makes churches that are like the church of Ephesus in Revelation that are too heavy on correcting error but have forgotten how to love as in the beginning of their faith. So far as a christian discipline .. i wouldn't say it is christian .. but it does contribute to the strongly implied idea that having a perfect interpretation of scripture is necessary for salvation .. which is more akin to Gnosticism.

 

[Chandler50]

How do we know when "the tradition" is from God, or is Gods will, and not from someone else?

We can know that holy tradition comes from God because of apostolic succession; also because it never contradicts scripture since they originate from the same source.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The bible also identifies the creation as a fail safe teaching all necessary things including the Godhead since the beginning of time. No bible? no problem! just pray .. the Master teaches in parables.

 

[Chandler50]

Experience demands that there be SOME final authority. If "tradition" or some "head" says or does anything which contradicts clear Scriptural teaching, which DO you follow? If you say "tradition" then the "head" AND the Scripture take a back seat, and the inference is that they are not as reliable as "tradition". Likewise, if you say the "head", then the other two are suspect of possible error. In any organization, if there is no FINAL authority, there is chaos. The reason that Protestants claim the Scripture as the final authority is because it is the only one of the three which has not changed, and will not change.

The Catholic Church does not claim that scripture or tradition are our final authority or 'head of the church'. The Church teaches:

"Christ "is the head of the body, the Church." He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, "in everything he [is] preeminent," especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things."- (CCC, para 792)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This illustrates the weakness in sola scriptura, it does not trust God to teach people supernaturally with the holy spirit. And because it does not come from faith, it is sin. (Romans 14)

 

[RC1970]

We can know that holy tradition comes from God because of apostolic succession

Since the concept of apostolic succession is a tradition, this would be an example of begging the question.

also because it never contradicts scripture since they originate from the same source.

How do we know they come from the same source?

 

[Goatee]

How do we know when "the tradition" is from God, or is Gods will, and not from someone else?

Because Tradition as we know it in the Catholic church has been handed down directly from Jesus who started the church!

Brilliant thread Chandler50

 

[RC1970]

Because Tradition as we know it in the Catholic church has been handed down directly from Jesus who started the church!

Brilliant thread Chandler50

How do you know this? Because it's a tradition?

 

[Goatee]

How do you know this? Because it's a tradition?

Read the NT and you will understand why.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

this is why sola scriptura cultivates so many skilled militant athiests who sound like christian theologians doing concept replacement therapy with the same logical formulas. Sola scriptura allows the flesh to control the phenomena through being right, being better than others, this is the pattern of the world, this is also why I don't look at sola scriptura as a godly idea.

 

[RC1970]

Read the NT and you will understand why.

So what you are saying is that the Bible either authenticates or refutes the tradition?

 

[Goatee]

So what you are saying is that the Bible either authenticates or refutes the tradition?

Tradition has always been the way of the Catholic Church. Handed down from the very beginning. Look how many 'religions' there are that believe in Sola Scripture! The Holy spirit works in those who have carried 'Tradition' down through the ages.

This says it all for me:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition

 

[Chandler50]

So what you are saying is that the Bible either authenticates or refutes the tradition?

The Bible compliments tradition because they are one in the same. We know tradition is true from history. The same way that we know the Bible is true because of history. The fact that it was considered a heresy to deny apostolic succession by all of our church fathers is based on the same amount of evidence that the Bible was authored by the apostles. If we deny one, we must deny the other.

 

[StephanieSomer]

The Catholic Church does not claim that scripture or tradition are our final authority or 'head of the church'. The Church teaches:

"Christ "is the head of the body, the Church." He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, "in everything he [is] preeminent," especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things."- (CCC, para 792)

I am very aware of what the Catholic church teaches. I was raised Catholic and attended a parochial school. I went through all the Sacraments which a Catholic child normally goes through, and I finished the entire Catechism in Religion class. I am also well aware of the many non-official stories and practices which are common among Catholics which teach things which are NOT a part of the Catholic standards, yet are believed and followed by many. Practice usually does NOT adhere strictly to official teaching in nearly ALL denominations. But, it must be understood that practice, in itself, does teach people things. The very fact that some of those things which are taught by practice differ from what is officially taught through sermon, homily, or classroom, points out that a final authority MUST exist. In truth, and I think you will agree, God alone is that authority. But through what does He primarily pass His Truth? I haven't taken the time, nor will I, to demonstrate instances where a particular head, or tradition, has differed from what Scripture actually says. I will leave that task to others, it isn't my intention to argue or diminish that which you believe. My only point is that there must be a final, definitive, unarguable, and unchangeable, source of direction, which supersedes all other guides of faith and theology. I can find no other than the Scripture. As long as tradition and a particular head coincide EXACTLY with Scripture, I take no issue with either of them. But, if even a single instance can be demonstrated where one of them has gone where Scripture has not, then it must be regarded as inferior to Scripture. If one believes that one of these has never departed from the Scripture, they should have no issue with that statement.

 

[Goatee]

What did people do before the Bible? In the early church? You know what the did? They were taught via 'Tradition'. Word of mouth. The Holy spirit teaching through the Apostles, Disciples. Hardly anything was written down in the early church. No Bible to look at, to refer to!! You cant use Scripture alone! The Holy spirit works through 'Real' people too.

 

[StephanieSomer]

What did people do before the Bible? In the early church? You know what the did? They were taught via 'Tradition'. Word of mouth. The Holy spirit teaching through the Apostles, Disciples. Hardly anything was written down in the early church. No Bible to look at, to refer to!! You cant use Scripture alone! The Holy spirit works through 'Real' people too.

I agree. The Holy Spirit DOES work through real people too. He works through many different avenues. But, which avenue has the least possibility of error? Did ALL the early Church fathers agree? No, they didn't. Is there any possibility that differing Church fathers were BOTH correct? Not likely. So, can Church fathers be held as infallible? No. So, if there is any one avenue which the Holy Spirit works which NEVER contradicts, wouldn't it be superior to all others?

You, and others have insisted that tradition and Scripture have always coincided. So, if you believe that, why would you take issue with anyone who holds Scripture as supreme? If they truly DO coincide, there would be no difference between them and one who holds tradition as supreme, would there?

 

[Goatee]

I agree. The Holy Spirit DOES work through real people too. He works through many different avenues. But, which avenue has the least possibility of error? Did ALL the early Church fathers agree? No, they didn't. Is there any possibility that differing Church fathers were BOTH correct? Not likely. So, can Church fathers be held as infallible? No. So, if there is any one avenue which the Holy Spirit works which NEVER contradicts, wouldn't it be superior to all others?

You, and others have insisted that tradition and Scripture have always coincided. So, if you believe that, why would you take issue with anyone who holds Scripture as supreme? If they truly DO coincide, there would be no difference between them and one who holds tradition as supreme, would there?

Scripture alone is not supreme and if you look at the 1,000s of churches that have sprung up since Luther you will see that these 'churches' like to interpret scripture in their own unique way! They like to twist it to suit their needs and even change it to suit their needs. True 'Tradition' comes from the Church that Jesus started, The Catholic Church.