Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

By Joe Moreaux

There is not one verse anywhere in the Bible that teaches Sola Scriptura. So the doctrine is self refuting.

2 Tim 3:16-17 teaches that Scripture is profitable (Greek: ophelimos), useful, not sufficient. Water is useful for our existence, but not sufficient; we also need air, food, shelter, etc. Paul also says that Timothy needs to remember all he learned from Paul (2 Tim 3:10), also that he was instructed since his infancy and knows those who taught him (2 Tim 3:14-15). Many things are profitable, not only Scripture. Also, this passage is referring to the Old Testament in context, so this would mean Paul was saying the Old Testament was the sole rule faith, which of course is false. Some might argue that Paul is speaking about the nature of Scripture, not the canon. But the canon is relevant because we must know with certainty which books are identified as "God breathed" before we can discuss its nature. If all Scripture is inspired, as Paul says, then we have to be sure we know we have all the correct writings.

The Greek word for "perfect" here is artios. Perfect does not mean "only necessary thing." James 1:4 says patience makes us perfect, but we don't teach Sola Patientia. A doctor might say the Physicians Desk Reference perfects him to treat any medical situation, but he also needs his stethoscope, blood pressure gage, training, tests, assistants, etc. If the doctor doesn't use his medical instruments properly, it can be life threatening. 2 Tim 2:15 says we must handle the word of truth rightly, which means it is possible handle it incorrectly, like an untrained medical student who improperly uses his surgical instruments.

A fish looks majestic and thrives in water inside an aquarium. Remove the fish from its environment, and it withers and dies in the hands of man. Scripture thrives in its historical and ecclesiastical environment (Tradition and Magisterium). But isolate it, and it withers in the private opinions of man.

And any passage which one uses to teach Sola Scriptura automatically fails because Sacred Tradition was still occurring while Scripture was being written.
St. Paul says his oral teachings are also rightly accepted as the Word of God in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 We thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. He commands people to obey his oral traditions in 1 Cor 11:2 Keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. The Apostolic oral tradition was maintained and protected through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as Our Lord promised in John 16:13.
Paul gives an affirmative command to hold all the traditions he taught whether written or oral in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

By what authority do Protestants reject these teachings and commands of St. Paul? We are to stand firm and hold to the full Word of God. Sola Verbum Dei: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Not Sola Scriptura which is not a Christian teaching, but rather a teaching grounded in humanism.

Some doctrines are explicit in Sacred Scripture, such as Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Others are more explicit in Sacred Tradition, for example: Infant Baptism, the canon of Scripture, Sunday as the Lord's Day, Mary as the New Eve.
And Sacred Tradition also helps us to know the true interpretation of a Bible passage such as John 3:5 or John 6:53. Sacred Tradition serves as the Church's living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed, and how to properly interpret the Bible in key passages. 1 Timothy 3:15 says the Church is the pillar, foundation, ground, bulwark of the truth. Ask a Protestant, "What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?" Every now and then, they respond, "The Bible!" But the Bible doesn't say that. It calls the Church the pillar and foundation of truth. The living community of believers founded upon St. Peter and the Apostles and headed by their successors — St. Paul says this is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Jesus established an authoritative teaching Church, commissioned to teach "all nations" (Matt 28:19). This same Church is promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against her (Matt 16:18). Our Lord said He would always be with her (Matt 28:20). And that the Spirit would lead her to all truth (John 16:13). Whoever hears the Church, hears Christ (Lk 10:16).
He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and said whatever he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven. He made Peter the visible head of His Church. The Bible clearly shows us that Jesus gave authority to His Church to safeguard and define the Deposit of Faith. This Church also has the gift to exercise infallibility. If at any time in history it would have definitively taught error on faith or morals, even temporarily, it would cease being the foundation of truth. By its very nature, a foundation is meant to be a permanent support.

The Protestant calls the Bible the sole rule of faith. But how can the Church be the pillar of truth if it is not to serve as an infallible authority to tell us what the Bible actually says? By denying the Church's authority, the Protestant denies the Church is the pillar and foundation, and thus denies his own Bible. Only one Church traces its lineage unbroken to the Apostles. Protestantism shifts and changes with each new denomination, and thus can not be a pillar of truth. Its foundation is shaky (Matt 7:26-27). Our Lord did not intend His followers to build their spiritual homes on such an unreliable foundation.

St. Augustine, 4th century: "I would not believe the Gospel itself if not for the authority of the Catholic Church."

In Matthew 18:15-18, Christ instructs His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother “will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Matt 18:17)—an outsider who is lost. Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose (Matt 16:18-19), directing it this time to the Apostles as a group rather than just to Peter: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt 18:18).

Of course there are instances in the Bible where Our Lord does appeal to Scripture, but in these cases He, as one having authority, was teaching the Scriptures; He was not allowing the Scriptures to teach themselves. He would respond to the Scribes and Pharisees by using Scripture precisely because they often tried to trip Him up by using Scripture. In these instances, Our Lord often demonstrates how the Scribes and Pharisees had wrong interpretations, and hence He corrects them by properly interpreting Scripture. Whenever Christ refers His hearers to the Scriptures, He also provides His infallible, authoritative interpretation of them, demonstrating that the Scriptures do not interpret themselves.

This also shows the Church must be a visible, tangible entity established in a hierarchical fashion. Otherwise, how would anyone have known to whom the wrongdoer should be referred? If the Protestant definition of “church” were correct, then the wrongdoer would have to “hear” each and every believer who existed, hoping that there would be unanimity among them regarding the issue at hand. The inherent absurdity of this scenario is readily apparent. Christ established a living Church to teach with His authority. He did not simply give His disciples a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may. And the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.

2 Peter 3:16 Certain things hard to be understood (in Paul's letters), which the unlearned and unstable distort, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

The Bible contains passages which are not readily clear, a fact which demonstrates the need for an authoritative and infallible teacher to make the passages understandable. It is not only possible that people could distort the meaning of Scripture, but this was, in fact, being done from the very earliest days of the Church. And to distort the meaning of Scripture results in one’s destruction. Protestants claim the Bible interprets itself, but this is proven false when you ask just ten Protestants of different denominations to interpret a passage. Even with prayer and study, you still get potentially ten different interpretations. If their claim was true, it should be identical.

Acts 8:26-40 is the account of St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. The Holy Spirit leads Philip to approach hin, and when he learns that the eunuch is reading from the prophet Isaias, Philip asks a key question: “Do you understand what you are reading?” The eunuch says, “How can I, unless some man show me?”

The Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says.

2 Peter 1:20 “No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” Prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. It is also telling that this verse is followed by a section on false teachers (2 Pet 2:1-10). The clear implication is that private interpretation is a pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching. There is roughly a 65 year gap between Our Lord’s Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible. The question then is this: “Who or what served as the final infallible authority during that time?”

How can Sola Scriptura be true if it was not even being practiced by the Apostles and Christians of the 1st century? If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete.

In the 1st century, persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, and some false teachings had already appeared (Gal 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian’s only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully written—much less settled in terms of its canon—until 65 years after Christ’s Ascension, how did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

Protestants claim the Apostles were temporarily the final authority while the New Testament was being written, and then when St. John died, it became the Bible. But can they show where the Bible teaches this belief? No, they can't. The Bible nowhere says that once the last Apostle dies, the written form of God’s Word alone will become the final authority. Christ sent the Holy Spirit to the Church, and He has always been present in the Church, teaching it all truth (John 16:13) and continually safeguarding its doctrinal integrity, particularly through the office of the Pope. Thus the Gospel would still have been preached—authoritatively and infallibly—even if not a single verse of the New Testament had ever been written. The Church came before the Bible, and not the other way around. It was the Church which wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God: the Israelites as the Old Testament Church and the early Catholics as the New Testament Church.

Our Lord gives a certain primacy to the teaching authority of His Church and its proclamation in His name. In Matthew 28:20, Jesus commissions the Apostles to go and teach in His name, making disciples of all nations. In Mark 16:15 the Apostles are commanded to go and preach to all the world. In Luke 10:16, whoever hears the Church hears Our Lord. These facts are most telling, as nowhere do we see Our Lord commissioning His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing in His name. The emphasis is always on preaching the Gospel, not on printing and distributing it.

Since the Church produced the Scriptures, it is quite biblical, logical and reasonable to say that the Church alone has the authority to interpret properly and apply them. And if this is so, then by reason of its origin and nature, the Bible cannot serve as the only rule of faith for Christian believers. In other words, by producing the Scriptures, the Church does not eliminate the need for itself as teacher and interpreter of those Scriptures. The forms of God’s Word are complementary, not competitive. Thus, if there is a need for the Scriptures, there is also a need for the teaching authority which produced them. The early Fathers knew nothing of Sola Scriptura. They wrote about Apostolic succession, bishops as guardians of the truth, and the authority of Rome. They also taught about Sacred Tradition.

St. Irenaeus, 189AD: The Church received this faith, and although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. The authority of the tradition is one and the same... For everyone who may wish to know the truth, contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics.

St. Athanasius, 330AD: Let us note that the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded – and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.

St. Basil, 375AD: Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical.

If you look at the history of the early Church, you will see that it continually struggled against heresies and those who promoted them. We also see the Church responding to those threats again and again by convening councils and turning to Rome to settle disputes in matters of doctrine and discipline. Pope Clement intervened in a controversy in the Church at Corinth at the end of the 1st century and put an end to a schism there.

In the 2nd century, Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate a large portion of the Church in the East because of a dispute about when Easter should be celebrated.

In the earlier part of the 3rd century, Pope Callistus pronounced the condemnation of the Sabellian heresy. In the case of these heresies and conflicts in discipline that would arise, the people involved would defend their erroneous beliefs by their respective interpretations of Scripture, apart from Sacred Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. A good illustration of this point is the case of Arius, the 4th-century priest who declared that the Son of God was a creature and was not co-equal with the Father.

If you ask a Protestant whether or not Arius was correct in his belief that the Son was created, he will, of course, respond in the negative. Even though Arius presumably “compared Scripture with Scripture,” he nonetheless arrived at an erroneous conclusion. If this were true for Arius, what guarantee does the Protestant have that it is not also true for his interpretation of a given Bible passage?

The very fact that the Protestant knows Arius’ interpretations were heretical implies that an objectively true or “right” interpretation exists for the Biblical passages he used. The issue, then, becomes a question of how we can know what that true interpretation is.

Had the Catholic Church not been both infallible and authoritative in its declaration, then believers would have had no reason whatsoever to reject Arius’ teachings, and the whole of Christianity today might have been comprised of modern-day Arians. One historical fact which proves extremely inconvenient for the Protestant is the fact that the canon of the Bible—the authoritative list of exactly which books are part of inspired Scripture—was not settled and fixed until the end of the 4th century. Until that time, there was much disagreement over which Biblical writings were considered inspired and Apostolic in origin. The Biblical canon varied from place to place: some lists contained books that were later defined as non-canonical, while other lists failed to include books which were later defined as canonical.

There were Early Christian writings which were considered by some to be inspired and Apostolic and which were actually read in Christian public worship, but which were later omitted from the New Testament canon. These include Clement's letter to Corinth, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, and The Didache, among others. Others questioned if 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, Hebrews, and Apocalypse were inspired.

It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books.

From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later. Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura: Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified? And if there was a final authority that the Protestant recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible’s canon was established?

As difficult a reality as it may be for some to face, this foundational doctrine of Protestantism did not originate until the 14th century in seed form, and did not become widespread as a staple until the 16th century—a far cry time wise from the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. This simple fact is conveniently overlooked or ignored by Protestants, but it can stand alone as sufficient reason to discard the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The truth is that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura existed in its infancy in seed form by John Wycliffe (forerunner of Protestantism) in the 14th century, and did not become widespread until Martin Luther came along in the 16th century and began setting up his own “traditions of men” in place of authentic Christian teaching.

The doctrine, therefore, not only lacks the historical continuity which marks legitimate Apostolic teaching, but it actually represents an abrupt change, a radical break with the Christian past.

The claim that the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura is nothing more than a repeated effort to insert this belief back into the pages of Scripture. The examination of historical continuity (or lack thereof) provides an indication whether or not a particular belief originated with Jesus Christ and the Apostles or whether it appeared somewhere much later in time. The fact is that the historical record is utterly silent on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura prior to the 14th century.

Jesus said in Mark 7:8, "Having neglected the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." This is what the Protestants have done. They have accepted a tradition of men.
Sola Scriptura has been dubbed the blueprint for anarchy.

If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then it should be expected that Protestants would all be in agreement in terms of doctrine, as the Bible could not simultaneously teach contradictory beliefs. And yet the reality is that there are literally thousands of Protestant sects and denominations, each of which claims to have the Bible as its only guide, each of which claims to be preaching the truth, yet each of which teaches something different from the others.

Protestants claim that they differ only in non-essential or peripheral matters, but the fact is that they cannot even agree on major doctrinal issues such as the Eucharist, salvation, and justification—to name a few. Our Lord categorically never intended for His followers to be as fragmented, disunited and chaotic as the history of Protestantism has been since its very inception. Quite the contrary, He prayed for His followers: “That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (John 17:21).

St. Paul exhorts us to unity: "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:4-5).
How can tens of thousands of Protestant denominations and sects claim to be the the true "Church" when their very existence refutes this claim? Matthew 12:33 A tree is known by its fruit.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches that a believer only needs the Bible as a rule of faith and that he can find a proper interpretation of a passage by comparing it with the rest of what the Bible teaches. This method ultimately prevents the person from ever knowing definitively and with certainty how any given passage should be interpreted.

The Protestant is only able to interpret the Bible from a standpoint of subjective opinion, never from objective truth. If three Protestants each interpret one passage three different ways, each of them can never know for sure which is wrong and each can assert theirs is correct since they just "compared Scripture with Scripture." Without an infallible authority outside of them to tell them which one is right and which one is wrong, they will never really know.

If we were each able to set our own moral standards for right and wrong, then we would have moral relativism. Protestantism is thus rooted in relativism in its method of determining truth from error. If any demomination claims it has the correct interpretation, then it is claiming to be the final authority, which violates its own principle of Sola Scriptura.
Protestants are guilty of violating their own doctrine. Sola Scriptura prohibits anyone from adding to or deleting from the Bible. But Protestants deleted seven entire books from the Old Testament.

They deleted Tobias, Judith, 1st and 2nd Macabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. They also deleted portions of Daniel and Esther.

Portions of these books are cited by Jesus and the Apostles. In the book The Formation of the Biblical Canon, by Protestant author Lee Martin McDonald, he notes that these books are cited or alluded to in the New Testament no less than 150 times.

The reason they removed these books was for doctrinal reasons they did not agree with, such as 2nd Macabees teaching praying for the dead (referring to Purgatory) or the intercession of angels in Tobit.

The early Church all accepted these books as part of the Old Testament canon. And once the Church officially settled the canon issue in the 4th century, those seven books were always included, until the Protestant Revolutionaries decided centuries later that they could just trash the books. By what authority did they think they could do such a thing? This ought to make every Protestant really pause and second guess their belief system.

Luther was chronically and deeply troubled by his despair of salvation due to temptations and sin. He wrestled with being scrupulous. He wrote that he was always in a state of melancholy and that his good works brought him no consolation.

This gives us insight into his emotional and psychological frame of mind in terms of the origin of the Sola Scriptura doctrine and its accompanying heresy Sola Fide. He wrote that his guilt, despair, shame, and temptation tortured him.

Lutheran scholars admit that he struggled with scrupolosity, which indicated a lack of trust in God from his writings.

Luther's way of dealing with this was to reject the authority of the Church and declare himself to be a superior authority. This then allowed him to teach his heresy of Sola Fide, which helped him escape from his fear of falling into constant sin and worrying that God could not be merciful.

Protestants need to seriously think about the ramifications of this, that their entire edifice is built upon Luther's own emotional, psychological, and spiritual hang ups.