A Catholic Critique of Sola Scriptura (Copy)

ROTK recently engaged in a written debate with a Protestant regarding the topic of Sola Scriptura. It is always important to begin by asking two questions:

1. How do you define Sola Scriptura?

2. Where do you derive this idea from Scripture?

The reason for these two initial questions is because it is always important to know as a Catholic what definition of Sola Scriptura you are debating. Protestants can have slightly different definitions at times. As well, since their core argument rests on Scripture being their primary authority, they ought to be able to demonstrate their own doctrine from their primary authority.

In this particular instance, the Protestant defined Sola Scriptura as, "The ultimate authority in determining doctrines pertaining to faith and morals." He argued that tradition and historical Councils were helpful tools, but that they were subservient to Scripture as the primary and final authority.

As the debate forged ahead, I had honed in on five specific questions that I asked him to address. Eventually, he did provide some answers. This article will feature my original five questions, his summary responses, and then my follow up to his responses. Shortly after I sent him my follow up comments, both sides agreed to end the debate. He had made it clear that he had no intention of considering a conversion to Catholicism, and so we brought the debate to a close.

It is our hope and prayer that this excerpt of the debate will aid you in your own conversations with Protestants. Remember, it is of the utmost importance to focus on the issue of Authority since this is the foundational issue which divides them from Catholicism.

Here are the five questions, his follow up summary responses, and my follow up comments.

1. How can you have a Bible passage teaching Sola Scriptura when Sola Scriptura is not being practiced at that time in the 1st century, since oral revelation is still being given?

Protestant: "Sola Scriptura is older than the 1st century and goes back to the OT where the prophets heeded the Israelites to get back to God's Law. They give new revelation, but heed people to get back to the written stuff. The church in the beginning stages is just like how Israel had been functioning in previous generations."

Me: This response does not answer the question. In order for Sola (or Prima) Scriptura to be true, it needs to be a doctrine that itself is found within Scripture. However, the dilemma remains that if one attempts to offer a Scripture passage that teaches Scripture alone is the ultimate authority (Psalm 119, 1 Cor 4:6, 2 Tim 3:16-17 as examples of passages you have cited), it must mean that those passages were intending to teach that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority when they were originally written. This is an impossibility since divinely inspired oral revelation was still being given at the time of the writing, whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament. You can not have a passage teaching Scripture alone is the ultimate authority when that concept is not even being practiced at the time of the writing.

You would need an Apostle or prophet for example saying, “Scripture will be the sole ultimate authority one day when public revelation ceases,” or, “You must listen to what we are teaching orally under the inspiration of God, but eventually all that we proclaim will be more or less confined to the writings which will then be your ultimate authority.” Of course, nothing in Scripture indicates this at all. Nor does anything in Tradition. Nor does anything in official Magisterial statements or Councils. Even 2 Timothy 3:16-17 itself states that all Scripture is profitable and useful to equip the man of God, not sufficient nor the ultimate authority.

St. Paul instructs the Thessalonians that they are receiving the Word of God when he preaches as well (1 Thess 2:13), and that they must stand firm and hold fast to both his oral preaching and written epistles (2 Thess 2:15). The Greek word for “stand firm” is steko, and literally means to “preserve.” We see it used in 1 Corinthians 16:13 (“Stand firm in the faith”) and Philippians 4:1 (“Stand firm in the Lord”). The Greek word for “hold fast” is krateo, which literally means to “to seize into custody, take, grab, hold onto, retain” with an emphasis on strongly gripping.

St. Paul commands them to stand firm and hold fast to the traditions they were taught whether (Greek for “whether” is eite) by word (Greek for “word” is logou which is used for vocal statements in Luke 20:20, John 15:20, Acts 14:12, Acts 15:32, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 1 Corinthians 2:1, 2 Thessalonians 2:2, Hebrews 13:22) or (Greek for “or” is also eite) letter.

It is notable that a conditional clause is used by Paul, indicating that the Thessalonians must stand firm and hold fast to everything he has taught, “whether” by spoken word “or” written letter. This indicates that in the body of his teaching, there are some things he has taught orally and also other things he has taught through writing. Of course, there may be some cross over on both, yet it remains that the Thessalonians must abide by all of it. And there is no indication given, again, that he tells them at some point in the future, his oral teachings will be more or less confined to his writings, and once they are, the writings themselves will act as the sole ultimate rule of faith.

I have already given several examples from the Fathers noting teachings that they say were orally taught by the Apostles. St. Augustine mentioned that heretics can validly administer Baptism. Tertullian notes that we are to commemorate the anniversaries of the death of martyrs and make offerings for them. Origen said infant baptism was handed down from the oral preaching of the Apostles. St. Basil said that the Apostles taught the Sign of the Cross prayer. Once one establishes these as truths, it can be easy to go back and make deductions from Scripture. However, even if one did this, it suffices that these teachings were believed by the Fathers due to the oral preaching of the Apostles.

St. Irenaeus taught that all churches must agree with the Church of Rome because of its superior origin. St. Irenaeus and Tertullian both taught that public revelation ended with the Apostles. St. Irenaeus and St. Justin both note Mary as the New Eve. St. Ignatius, the Didache, and St. Barnabas all say that Sunday has replaced the Sabbath as the Lord’s Day for the New Covenant. St. Clement of Alexandria taught that contraception was a sin. St. Polycarp spoke of methods of fasting that he learned from St. John the Apostle.

Sola Scriptura cannot be found in the OT for the same reason it cannot be found in the NT: because oral revelation is being given simultaneously by appointed leaders and prophets. And the hearers are bound to those when they are uttered. When they declare the Word of the Lord, they are orally proclaiming inspired revelation that all are bound to obey. The OT as well provides no indication of Scripture being the sole ultimate rule of faith once public revelation ceases. For matters of doctrine and questions pertaining to faith and morals, the Israelites had the Law (written) and they had the prophets (oral) and they had an authority to turn to that could consult God on decisions that needed to be made (Numbers 15:32-36, Numbers 27:18-22, Deuteronomy 5:5, 2 Samuel 23:2, 1 Kings 17:24). Moses did not just heed people back to the Law, which at the time was via oral teaching, but he also gave commands and teachings that were rooted in God’s revelations to him. When the Israelites began to falter into sin, he would heed them back to the Law.

If there are two modes by which revelation is given, then you automatically cannot have Sola Scriptura as the ultimate rule of faith. There are two rules, and yet they are equal in authority and never contradict one another, since the source behind both is the Holy Spirit. If oral teaching deviated by one iota in its terminology, it proves the case for Tradition. If Luke records Paul, for example, writing regarding Baptism, “This promise is for you and your children,” and then an hour later Paul proclaims, “You need to baptize your children,” both of these statements are equally the Word of God, and they prove the case for Scripture and Tradition. Even if one argues that the written statement is implicitly the same thing as the proclaimed statement, that is not relevant. The only relevant thing is that both are divinely inspired, thus there are two modes by which the hearers received divine inspiration.

Jude cites two stories, one on Moses and one on Enoch, which are not found in the OT and yet are authoritatively true (Jude 1:9-16). The NT mentions that angels delivered the law in the OT, which is an extra biblical source that is considered authoritative (Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, Hebrews 2:2-3).

If the Church in its early stages functions just how Israel did, then you need a reason outside of Scripture to justify why the Church now accepts Scripture alone as the ultimate rule of faith. This brings it back to the original question, which has not been answered because there is no answer. You cannot have a passage teaching Sola Scriptura when Sola Scriptura is not being practiced.

2. Where does Scripture teach that the oral preaching would eventually be confined to Scripture alone as the ultimate rule moving forward?

Protestant: "2 Tim 3:16-17 is a principle, showing Scripture is ontologically different. God's Word can be found in Scripture. Where does it teach that oral teachings are binding? Where is that in the OT? Moses taught, but heeded people to go back to the Law. We do that as Christians. How did the Israelites interpret the OT without an infallible Magisterium? Precedent is set up with Jesus."

Me: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 notes that all Scripture is God-breathed. Even then, we still needed an extra-biblical authority to make a determination on which books would be ultimately included in the canon and which ones would not. This is regarding the epistles and letters which were in dispute, not the writings with which there was virtual agreement among the Fathers (another indication of Tradition).

Scripture is ontologically different when contrasted to any other literature in the world. Likewise, divinely inspired oral preaching is ontologically different when contrasted to any other vocal statements made in the world. If St. Paul calls his oral teachings “the Word of God” in 1 Thess 2:13, and if the Fathers accepted such oral teachings as binding, then how can you ask, “Where does it teach the oral teachings are binding?” Are you suggesting that Paul’s hearers and the early Church were free to not accept oral teachings which were “the Word of God” according to Paul?

Were people free to disagree with the commands of the prophets in the Old Testament since they were not written down yet? If the oral preaching of Paul is truly the Word of God, then how can you say it carries less weight in any way with Scripture? Whatever Paul taught orally or written that was under inspiration, we are bound to hold fast to both, as shown again in 2 Thess 2:15, and as believed by the early Church.

The Apostles were the ones who had to officially bind the canon of the Old Testament, and it was their successors who had to make the determination regarding the canon of the New Testament. We have evidence in the early Church that Clement’s letters and Polycarp’s letters were proclaimed in the churches for some time. It was also speculated by many that the Didache, Hermas, and Barnabas (all first century works) were inspired. Some questioned Hebrews, the Apocalypse, 2nd and 3rd John, and Jude. So the Church had to make the determination, and that decision has stood to the present day.

God's Word can be found in Scripture and in Tradition. An extra biblical authority was needed to finally determine which books belonged in the Bible since there was dispute on some. Are you suggesting that the oral teachings of the prophets and apostles were not binding? They had to wait to be written? Moses did heed at times to return to the Law due to immorality, but he was also commissioned to teach orally and to be an authoritative leader to make decisions. The Israelites did not practice private interpretation of the Law. They had teachers appointed to guide them, and prophets to steer them. And they were bound by obedience to these sources.

3. Where does Scripture teach that public revelation would cease with the death of the last Apostle?

Protestant: "Hebrews 1:1-2 addresses this: 'He has spoken to us by His Son.' And all the Apostles are doing is recommunicating ideas that they were taught by Christ."

Me: The Apostles are not just recommunicating ideas but are teaching divine revelation from the Holy Spirit who leads them into truth, as promised by Our Lord (John 16:13). Hebrews mentions that in the latter days God would speak through His Son, but does not say when public revelation would cease and by whom it would cease. It also does not mention to whom inspiration would apply.

St. Mark and St. Luke are not Apostles, they are disciples and friends of the Apostles, yet their Gospels are inspired. St. Barnabas and St. Clement were contemporaries of the Apostles who wrote letters, yet their writings are not inspired. St. Polycarp was a student of St. John, yet his writings were not inspired. Nor were the letters of St. Ignatius, who was ordained by Sts. Peter and Paul and also a student of St. John.

Jude 1:3 mentions that the faith has “once for all been delivered to the saints,” past tense, and yet revelation still had not yet ceased, as we still awaited St. John’s Gospel, three epistles, and the Apocalypse.

St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 3, and Tertullian, in Prescription Against Heretics Chapter 21, both lay out the principle that revelation has concluded in the past tense with the Apostles, St. John being the last one. It is worth noting that they do not assert this based on Scripture, but rather as a truth that has been handed down to their present era. They connect this as well to the truth that the only way to properly know divine revelation is through the succession of bishops and the guardianship of the Church.

When the Apostles were teaching their disciples, ordaining bishops, and instructing the churches, they were recommunicating teachings from Our Lord, but they also were giving ongoing instruction that was divinely inspired for the building up and edification of the Church. These teachings were taught orally, and some of them as well were eventually written down. And once St. John, the final Apostle, passed away, the Church was left with holding fast to everything that had been taught whether by preaching or writing under divine inspiration. And these teachings were carried on unscathed through the succession of Bishops, and they were dogmatically defined through authoritative Councils.

4. How can the Protestant church model not have the mechanism to bind doctrines or call Councils when both of those are shown in both Scripture and Tradition as being inherent within the Church?

Protestant: "Luther wanted to have a Council and begged the Pope for one, and the Pope was probably using money from indulgences for bad things. We live in an age of liberal democracies, not theocratic government. Whenever a Council was called, it was normally done by an Emperor. There will be a Council at some point for Protestants. Lutherans have Synods often. Sola Scriptura does not discount Councils, but Councils must trace doctrines back to Scripture.”

Me: Pope Leo X was not using money for “bad things.” And Luther’s issue with the selling of indulgences was a local abuse to his area of Germany, which was corrected at the Council of Trent. The Council Fathers, with Pope St. Pius V, were able to not only correct the abuses, but did so without having to invent brand new sects with brand new doctrines. Luther may have wanted a Council to be called, and eventually it was with Trent, however the Council of course ended up disagreeing with Luther’s heresies in its articulation of dogmatic truths. Obviously, the Christian would be obliged to accept Trent over Luther in this regard.

Whether emperors called for Councils or not is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is that it was the successor of St. Peter, and the Bishops in union with him, who laid out the binding decrees. St. Athanasius clearly recognized the authority of the Council of Nicaea in this regard, writing, “The word of the Lord came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea and abides forever” (Synodal Letter to the African Bishops). He reiterated this as well in his Defense of the Nicene Definition, saying that one was not free to disagree with the decisions made at the Council.

It is not relevant that we presently live within liberal democracies (thanks in many ways to the seeds and foundation planted by Luther’s revolution), but what matters is whether or not a principle of faith is objectively true or false. Lutheran Synods have no way of binding the universal body of Protestants, which you have admitted yourself. And yet, Scripture and Tradition both demonstrate that Ecumenical Councils bind the body of all believers. Thus, Catholics must assent to all the authoritative decrees, canons, and anathemas delivered from an Ecumenical Council. However, the Protestant template has no way to actually accomplish this, proving it is not the template of the Bible or of history. It also reiterates why the Protestant model is built upon relativism. The truth is that Our Lord has one Body, one Bride. Not tens of thousands. His Bride adheres to His objective doctrine.

Who is going to call the Council for all Protestants? Who will make the binding decrees that all must agree to? If someone dissents and starts a new denomination opposed to this council, will they still be a “Christian” since they hold to their interpretation of the essentials?

Saying that Councils must trace their decisions back to Scripture is rooted in private interpretation of said Scripture. The reality is that Councils are called to clarify and expound upon dogmas that belong to Scripture and Tradition. And in the event that both sources do not provide explicit data, such as with the two Wills of Christ, then the Church must make a determination. Once she does, it will be protected from error, since whatever she binds is bound in Heaven, and God can not bind a lie.

This also brings me back to another point I raised, which is that you assert a doctrinal belief (i.e. heretics can possess the grace of God and be members of the Body) and yet provide no Scripture to prove this doctrinal belief. Meaning Scripture is not the ultimate final authority. Meaning Sola Scriptura is bogus.

5. Is it a heresy to teach that contraception is ok, and that divorce and remarriage is ok?

Protestant: "Divorce is allowable and permissible. Divorce can be allowable for infidelity. It is not ideal but it is given for hardness of heart. I struggle with the contraception issue as father of a few kids. Principles of stewardship should come in. Onanism is used but i don't see it as a strong argument against contraception. It should be done carefully and prayerfully, it is not ideal. I can't in good conscience call certain contraceptives sinful. Everyone should be guided by their pastor."

Me: I just want to note that my reason for bringing up divorce and remarriage was specifically due to the remarriage part, not the divorce part. So there was no response to that, even though it has been a recognized teaching throughout Church history that remarriage was a sin.

The same holds true for contraception, which even every Protestant denomination held to up until 1930 with the Anglican Lambeth Conference which changed its position and conformed to the world. Suddenly, it was not a sin anymore. And soon after, one by one, every single denomination caved in. The Catholic Church stands alone in being consistent on this topic which is rooted throughout Church history.

The acceptance of contraception from a moral doctrinal standpoint shows that Lutheranism (and Protestantism as a whole) belongs to the world and is not the Church founded by Our Lord.