Sola Scripture Refuted

 

 

The reformers taught that the Bible was the sole rule of faith, and that there was no need for an authoritative Church.  This idea became the central doctrine for all Protestant sects arising out of the reformation. When you study the history behind the canonization of Scripture it brings clarity to question everyone wants to know: how do you know what you know?

The canonization process destroys the notion of Sola Scriptura because how can Christians be bound to follow the written Word of God when Christians can’t be sure what is the written Word of God? Without an infallible table of contents or an infallible Authority, no one can truly be sure that the book he has in front of him is the Word of God.

The idea that the Scriptures are the final or sola authority is an illusion which can’t follow its own rule set. Any person or source outside of the Scripture which makes a decision as to what is and is not Scripture, makes themselves an authority outside of the Scriptures. An authority that is final on what is and is not Scripture.  

This destroys the notion that the Bible is the final authority when everyone needs a secondary authority outside of the Bible to know what is and is not the Bible. Christians simply didn’t just recognize Gods Word and all were in agreement, there were many books excluded from canon, many battles fought over the canon. Even today we still have differing canons among professing Christians. The Orthodox have their canon, Protestants have one that’s different and so do Catholics. Newer sects such as the Messianic Jews also follow a different canon, thus there is no one size fits all in terms of what is and is not canon.

 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

 The above verse is said to be the trump card for Sola Scriptura, this is the verse most pull when trying to argue that man should follow the Scriptures alone. The problem is the above verse doesn’t say that! It says Scripture is PROFITABLE, it doesn’t the Scriptures are SUFFICIENT.

This is a big problem because many things are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. One could argue that the law is profitable for equipping the man of God for every good work, but profitable and sufficient are two totally different ideas. In college it’s profitable to go to class to pass your test, but it’s not sufficient, one should also read the text book and study for the test.

Another important note related to this, is that, if what Biblical Christians claim is true it would be binding the very moment it was written.  This means Paul's statement to Timothy would have to apply to him at that time. At that time there was only an Old Testament. If 2 Timothy were true in the sense that Bible Christians claim it is, it would rule out the New Testament, something that no Bible believing Christian would ever do.

The other problem is that even the Old Testament wasn’t canonized until 94 AD at the the Council of Jamnia. Before the time of Christ and during his earthly ministry there were disputing canons even among the Jews, this fact also makes Sola Scriptura stand on shaky ground. The Jews however wouldn’t be overly concerned with such because the God of the Old Testament not only gave them his Written Word, but he also provided them with an AUTHORITY. If we are to believe in modern Protestant theology, there exists a great disconnect between the new and the old, whereas Catholicism flows naturally from the old.

 From Genesis to Revelation nowhere does the Bible claim to be sola infallible authority for God's Word, the Scriptures also mandates the use of Tradition which that fact alone disproves the Sola Scriptura claim.

In the Scriptures when matters of doctrine were disputed such as in the case of circumcision, it was Peter who settled the matter (Acts 15:1-14). He did so on his own Authority, he didn’t appeal to Scripture. The Scriptures tell us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). This is yet another passage which disproves the notion that the Scriptures are the pillar and foundation of truth for how can there be two pillars and foundations of truth?

The early Christians didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura nor could they even if they had wanted to. Bibles were rare prior to the invention of the printing press in 1450. Before that time Bibles were hand written and a copy was expensive to obtain. This is why Bibles use to be chained in Churches because they were valuable and thieves often targeted them as they could sell them for great value. Even if they had access to Bibles it wouldn't have mattered because most people back then were illiterate, and this is the reason Churches used Icons and images in Churches to help the illiterate understand the Biblical stories.

The modern day “Bible only” Christianity that Protestants claim Jesus established wasn't even possible for fourteen centuries after he supposedly established it. They often claim that during the time of Apostles there existed a teaching authority but that such authority went away with the death of the Apostles. Such argument is an ad hoc setup, how convenient that such an ad hoc setup is only found following the reformation and is in only used by those who say such things because the only Church which has historicity happens to disagree with their soteriology?

The notion of Sola Scriptura begin with an errant monk, yet the end result is thousands of varying denominations all claiming to teach the true teachings of the Bible and all claiming the Holy Spirit told them so. All disagreeing on what those truths are and all claiming the other is in error. Logically from an outsider prospective, how can one know who is and is not right when all use the same method and all arrive at different conclusions? The only conclusion that can be made, is that someone is wrong or maybe that all of them are wrong because all are using the incorrect method for determining truth.  

Scripture alone will never pass it’s own test. No book can ever be its own stand alone authority based on the simple fact no book speaks for itself. You can’t put a book on the trial and ask it to explain itself. All books must be interpreted and interpretations like opinions are tainted by worldview, education, culture, and time period. Take the account of the thief on the cross; often that passage is used as a proof text against the Catholic teaching of purgatory. The claim is that the thief was hell bound, didn’t have any time to do penance or work out his salvation and was pardoned on the cross. He was thus promised eternity with Christ that very day, even though his temporal punishment would have remained, yet there was no purgatory for him, thus we can conclude purgatory is false teaching.

Now let’s examine the verse in light of some facts. The original Greek scriptures lacked punctuation, commas didn’t exist in that era. When translators translated the scriptures often they introduced a profusion of stops, especially commas; and in doing this often intruded on the text their own interpretation of it.  In the case of adding commas whoever decides where one is placed is truly determining how it will be read. Whoever determines where the comma is placed makes himself an authority as to where the comma is placed, an authority outside of the scripture. The scriptures which lack punctuation can't determine where such stops should be placed, Sola Scriptura fails to tell us how to resolve this matter. Now let’s examine the scriptures to see my point.

Luke 23: 43: Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Luke 23: 43: Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise."

Notice how the comma changes the entire meaning of the passage. So when the protestant uses this passage against purgatory his entire case rests on punctuation which doesn’t exist in the original Greek, punctuation which has been added later. This concept alone defeats the idea of Sola Scriptura!

When Christ sent his Apostles out with the Authority he gave them, an Authority which was given to him by the Father, they went out and founded Churches. They ordained Bishops and left them in charge of these Churches. We can know this from history as these converts of the Apostles also wrote letters.

 St. Irenaeus wrote: But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

 St. Clement of Rome wrote: Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Letter to the Corinthians 44:1 [A.D. 95]).

 In just the posting of these quotes we can establish that at the same time the scriptures were being completed, the very men trained and taught by the Apostles were not saying or teaching what the reformations and “Bible only” Christians teach today.

In the scriptures when a Brother is in error and has to be corrected, where does the buck stop as they say? Who is the final appeal made to in which if the errant brother fails to heed he is than cast out?

Matthew 18:15-17: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

No one in this passage does it tell us that if your brother sins against you, point him to the scriptures to point out his error. yet in this very passage the buck stops with the Church in which if he refuses to listen to the Church he is cast out!

So I conclude, how do you know what you know? How can we debate what the scriptures say or don’t say, if we don’t know what is and is not scripture. If the Scriptures are the sola and final authority and yet the scriptures don’t tell us what is and is not scripture, how can such a claim be logical? We can debate the scriptures when you can tell me with infallible certainty, based on a valid claim, what is and is not scripture.