Sola Scriptura

Scripture Only

Is the Bible all that is Needed?

I abandoned this article on 8/15/2011 in favor of my fresh one about the same topic (click here to read it).

In the early 1500's the Protestant Reformers invented the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (scripture only or scripture alone) which teaches that the Bible is the only source of spiritual authority. These reformers rejected the Catholic teaching that, in addition to the Bible, the church and sacred tradition are sources of spiritual authority.

As I shall demonstrate, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unsound and cannot be supported either from church history or from the pages of scripture itself. However, I should emphasize that I believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God (but it is not the only Word of God). I believe the Bible should be interpreted literally and that wild allegorical interpretations (ala Origen and the Liberal Christians of modern days) should be rejected.

This article addresses these topics:

What do Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura?
How do they support Sola Scriptura?
Why is Sola Scriptura unsound?
What are the side effects of Sola Scriptura
What are the alternatives to Sola Scriptura?
What is the Word of God, rightly understood?
Is this really an important issue?

Featured article: Faith Alone (Sola Fide) | Related article: Inerrancy

Sola Scriptura

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Historical Context

At one time it was impossible for scripture (the New Testament) to be the sole authority for the Christian faith because the books and letters of the New Testament were not yet written.

The several time periods of Christianity in relation to the scripture:

Time Period	Authority for Faith
Apostolic, phase 1 — before they wrote anything	Apostolic verbal teaching was authoritative. The apostolically-ordained bishops were also authoritative; the apostles were aware that they needed to pass on the faith and chose worthy successors via ordination.
Apostolic, phase 2	Same as previous, plus: Some of the apostles had written books and letters (some are part of the New Testament). These were read during church service and were considered authoritative. Christians at large did not read these themselves. Other apocryphal writings were in common circulation and were treated as authoritative.
First generation after the apostles	All the writings of the New Testament were in circulation. These were read during church service and were considered authoritative. Christians at large did not read these themselves. Other apocryphal writings were in common circulation and were treated as authoritative. The apostolically-ordained bishops were the authority for the faith. But they began to disagree with each other.
Subsequent generations	Same as previous, plus: Heresies and councils to determine the true faith from the false. The Nicene Creed in 325 A.D. containing doctrines accepted today by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox: Christology, the Trinity. Many opinions about which books to include in the Canon with the implicit assumption that these books were the inspired Word of God.
Nicene Creed to Canon	Same as previous, plus: The Canon of scripture (list of books) was defined in the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. This included the Deuterocanonical books (called Apocrypha by modern anti-Catholics). Note that Christians at large only have access to the scriptures by hearing them read during mass. (The first written reference to the term "mass" was by St. Ambrose in 386 A.D. but the Eucharistic service with scripture readings and a sermon existed from the time of the Apostles).
Up to the Protestant Reformation	Same as previous, plus: A few people (Waldo, late 1100's A.D.; Wickliffe and Hus, 1330's A.D.) taught that scripture was the authority for faith. Martin Luther and the other Protestant Reformers all based their teachings on the idea that the scripture is the sole authority for faith. The Protestant Reformers removed the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible.
Up to modern times	Protestants still teach that scripture is the only authority for faith. Catholics accept scripture as authoritative but also accept other sources of authority (such as the Nicene creed, ecumenical councils, the Church).

Note: The Old Testament can never be the authority for Christianity unless it is combined with the New Testament.

Technically, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was only possible after the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. when the canon of scripture (list of books) was defined. Before this time many people accepted the so-called Apocrypha (non-inspired books) as divinely-inspired. Without a clear definition of which writings are truly the Word of God, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is impossible. In addition, it wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that the Deuterocanonical books were discarded from the canon of scripture (the first edition of the King James Bible includes these books). Does this mean that all the doctrines which form the basis of Christianity are flawed? (since the canon was flawed during the time period when these doctrines were determined).

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Overview

Was this doctrine in existence before the Protestant Reformation? (Protestants claim it was).

Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) is the Protestant teaching which states (regarding matters of faith):

The Bible is the only thing that is needed.
The Bible contains everything that is needed.

But the facts are clear that:

The apostles did not teach it.
The Bible does not teach it.
The Early Church Fathers did not teach it (because the apostles never taught it to them).
It was considered a heresy from the earliest days of the church.
It requires the use of circular reasoning by assuming the conclusion.
It requires prerequisite truths outside of the Bible.
It has undesirable side-effects.
The Bible contradicts it.
It did not become mainstream until the Protestant Reformation.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Apostles did not Teach Sola Scriptura

There are passages in the New Testament which indicate that verbal instruction and teaching are valid. This contradicts Sola Scriptura which teaches that only the scripture is authoritative. Certainly the writers of the New Testament didn't believe that.

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. (2 John 1:12)

This verse should shock those who follow Sola Scriptura. Here we have a case where John prefers to share information verbally rather than write it down. Presumably whatever these "many things" are, they are not in the Bible. How can we learn about them except by tradition?

Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. (Ephesians 3:5)

This Divine Revelation was not made known by scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) but was revealed to the apostles.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

The criteria we must use for testing all things is goodness, not scripture. This contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura which claims that scripture is the final authority.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Oral traditions have authority.

It is the apostles who are the head of the institutional church. They have the authority to (1) teach correct doctrine, and (2) interpret scripture.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. (2 Pet 1:19)

In this passage, it is the apostles who possess the reliable prophetic message, not the scripture. The message is the important thing no matter whether it is communicated via scripture or tradition.

Who is qualified to interpret? The word we refers to the apostles and those who teach the same orthodox gospel message.

I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. (1 John 2:14)

Fundamentalists often equate the phrase "word of God" with the Bible. But it is the gospel message and the holy living of Christians which is the "word of God," not the Bible.

Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. (1 John 2:24)

Notice that they "heard from the beginning" before there was a Bible. This demonstrates that the oral message is valid. Notice that John doesn't repeat what they heard, he merely assumes they know it or that they will continue to hear it from orthodox church leaders.

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. (2 John 1:12) I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee. (3 John 1:13)

His communication was verbal, not written. If Sola Scriptura were correct there would be nothing more to say: the written word would be sufficient.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

The Bible Does not Teach Sola Scriptura

In defending Sola Scriptura certain biblical passages are presented as having a meaning which they simply do not have.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Tim 3:16)

This passage is typically used to "prove" the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but it doesn't say anything about "only scripture."

I should mention that all these things are true about scripture (both Old and New Testaments)

There are biblical passages indicating that there is other authority besides the scripture.

Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? (James 4:5)

He quotes something that is not in the New Testament and calls it scripture. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is without foundation.

If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God... (1 Pet 4:11)

We should preach the words (plural) of God. This is not necessarily the Bible. God has other words besides the Bible. His words are not limited to the words in the Bible.

In the New Testament the word "scripture" refers to the Old Testament, not to the New Testament; in fact, there is no New Testament passage which uses the term scripture to refer to the New Testament (this is not surprising since there was no New Testament yet).

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (Rom 15:4)

Scripture = Old Testament.

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1 Cor 4:6)

This passage is specifically referring to the Old Testament.

There is a passage which seems to equate Paul's letters as scripture:

As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

This verse says nothing about scripture being the only thing that is needed.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

The Early Church Fathers did not Teach Sola Scriptura

Did the Early Church believe in Sola Scriptura?

Quotes	My comments
Ignatius. 108 A.D. I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him, are undefiled monuments of antiquity. The Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chap. 8	Ignatius is addressing those who claim they won't believe unless they find it in the scripture (Sola Scriptura). Notice that he seems to believe that the faith (based on tradition) is sufficient proof. Notice also that these who claim they will believe if they can find it written in the scriptures interpret the scriptures in such a way that they don't find the gospel in the scriptures. This problem of who is qualified to accurately interpret the scriptures is one of the problems with Sola Scriptura; no one can agree. But Ignatius sidesteps all this by stating that the faith which has been passed on by the church is the authority.
Papias. 115 - 140 A.D. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,-what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice. The Writings of Papias, From Book 3 of Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius, Chap. 39, Para. 4	Papias considered the spoken words (tradition) of trustworthy individuals to have a greater value than the scriptures.
Irenaeus. 180 A.D. True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy. Against Heresies, Book 4, Chap. 33, Para. 8	Notice that the scripture is merely one aspect of true knowledge. The Church through her validly-ordained succession of bishops (tradition) also plays a key role.
Tertullian. 200 A.D. But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,-a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. . . . To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. The Prescription Against Heretics, Chap. 32	Notice that it is by virtue of being a bishop whose ordination is in a succession from the apostles which provides the litmus test of truth; not the scriptures. The Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church is the repository of truth and in this role provides authoritative interpretation of the scriptures.

For quotations from the Early Church Fathers . . .

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Sola Scriptura was considered a Heresy by the Early Church

Sola Scriptura had already been condemned as early as 108 A.D.

I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel.The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, Chap. 8

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Sola Scriptura Requires Circular Reasoning

Sola Scriptura is typically supported by citing evidence from the Bible itself. But this is a circular argument and is therefore invalid. (The book of Mormon and the Koran make similar claims).

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Sola Scriptura Requires Prerequisite Truths Outside the Bible

Sola Scriptura itself of necessity requires authority outside the Bible. A few obvious examples:

The list of books in the Bible (the canon) is not contained in the Bible (the Early Church Fathers and the church determined the Canon).
The rules for determining the Canon of Scripture are not contained in the Bible.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself is not in the Bible (except by way of interpretation).
The essential doctrines of Christianity (such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ) are not stated in the Bible (they are stated in other documents).
The rules for how to interpret scripture are not contained in the Bible (that is why there are so many contradictory interpretations).
The creeds are not contained in the Bible.
Many Protestant beliefs and practices are not taught in the Bible (read more here: Is Protestant Teaching Unbiblical?).
The bylaws of any denomination are not contained in the Bible.

I've noticed that Protestants don't completely rely on the Bible as they claim. The following are additional things which even they must consider:

To determine which books and letters are inspired and authoritative (the Canon) required assistance from the Early Church Fathers. The Canon cannot be derived from the Bible itself. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura must assume that we first have an authoritative set of books to work with.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself originated from the Protestant reformers and is therefore merely an interpretation of the Bible. Interpretations require assumptions and information which originate from outside the Bible. These include: (1) Rules of interpretation and hermeneutical principles, (2) knowledge about Biblical times and history, (3) archaeological evidence, (4) an accurate translation of the Bible, (5) philosophical and theological biases which inevitably guide the interpretation (Martin Luther certainly had a bias which he could not disguise). Those who hold to Sola Scriptura pretend that the Bible is easy to accurately interpret but the fact of so many contradictory interpretations proves that this is not the case.
Many key doctrines, such as the Trinity, which are accepted as foundational by Protestants are not specifically formulated in the Bible but centuries later by the Church — usually in response to heresy. All doctrines are based on biblical interpretations and these interpretations are outside of the Bible. As a result the doctrines themselves are also outside of the Bible. To be true to Sola Scriptura we would not need any additional books of doctrinal formulations, Catechisms, or commentaries; yet Protestants have a high regard for these. Even sermons are extra-Biblical — it should be sufficient to merely read the Bible during church because expounding on the scripture violates Sola Scriptura.

Even Protestants must admit that there are several sources of valid extra-biblical information:

We must trust the determination of the Canon by the Early Church Fathers and the church.
We should consider the writings of the Church Fathers and the Synods (the Creeds) to assist us in properly interpreting the Bible and avoiding heresy.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Sola Scriptura has undesirable side-effects

Side-effects of Sola Scriptura.

Protestant teachers contradict each other.
Protestant teaching contradicts the Bible.
Protestants don't agree how to interpret the Bible.
Sola Scriptura provides a justification for claiming that Christ's Church failed.
Protestant doctrines are not stated in the Bible.
Denominational bylaws and distinctives are not in the Bible.
Protestant doctrines have developed over time.
There is disunity among those who accept Sola Scriptura.
Not all topics are in the Bible.

One problem with Sola Scriptura (and the problem that resulted in my conversion to Catholicism) is that no one can seem to agree on what the Bible even says. Each denomination and each system of Protestant Theology contradicts each other on important points. If all we needed was the Bible then we would be able to agree on what it says.

Those who follow Sola Scriptura may respond by noting that they all agree on the fundamental, foundational, and essential doctrines of the faith as expressed in the creeds. But they should consider that the creeds are merely interpretations of the Bible which were formulated by the Early Church Fathers in ecumenical councils. In addition, the creeds and other doctrinal statements are expressed in other documents besides the Bible.

The creeds are a part of the many traditions of the church herself. Thus, it is tradition that provides the foundational unity of the Protestant denominations rather than Sola Scriptura. Church organizations which don't adhere to these traditions, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons are rightly not even considered as truly Christian because it is tradition which defines Christianity, not the Bible. (Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses claim to base their faith on the Bible.)

The flawed assumptions of Sola Scriptura:

That the New Testament talks about all important topics.
That the New Testament gives a proper emphasis on each topic (but why so much emphasis on genealogy [Matthew 1] and virginity [1 Corinthians 7], for example?)
That doctrine does not develop (but the Trinity did develop, for example)

What is conspicuously missing in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the need for a single unified interpretation authority. Without a Holy Spirit-inspired interpretation people can come up all kinds of conflicting interpretations, which is exactly what we observe in the various Protestant denominations and Protestant systems of theology.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself is a doctrine which developed over time. The notion of Sola Scriptura as a foundation for the faith simply did not exist prior to the Protestant Reformation because it was promoted by Martin Luther in the early 1500's. This is significant because the notion that doctrines can develop over time is typically rejected by those who base their faith on Sola Scriptura. But Sola Scriptura is itself a developed doctrine.

The Christian Church is fragmented with disunity as is witnessed by the multiplicity of denominations. If the Bible were the only thing necessary why is there not a single, unified church?

There has been doctrinal development over time. For example:

The Trinity took hundreds of years to formulate. This was done in response to heretical claims.
The doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture took time to develop. This doctrine did not exist until after the New Testament was written and until the Canon of Scripture was determined.
All the foundational doctrines that appear in the table of contents of any book of Systematic Theology developed over time.
Even the Protestant Reformers developed doctrines 1,500 years after Christ. Examples are Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) and Sola Fide (faith alone).

Protestants claim that the Bible is the sole authority in all that it asserts. The difficulty of this view is that so many well-meaning theologians have come up with so many different interpretations from the same Bible. Who are we to believe?

Why do Protestant teachers disagree about so many teachings? Why would God give us His inerrant word and we would not be able to properly interpret it? Examples of disagreements:
    Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Easy-believism vs. Lordship salvation
Young-earth creationism vs. old-earth progressive creationism
Baptism as a symbol vs. Baptism actually removing original sin
Communion as a symbol vs. the Real Presence
End-time viewpoints
Charismatic vs. non-charismatic
Miraculous healing is the norm for today vs. the miraculous gifts ended with the apostles
The various forms of church government
Trinity vs. Modalism

For many of these topics you, the reader, may have already taken a strong stand for one position over the other. But there are many respected teachers and scholars who have taken the other side. Who is right? How can we know the truth?

Commonly it is claimed that these topics are not essentials to the faith, but some of them are rather important. But even the disagreements about the non-essential points are troubling. The fact that we can't properly interpret God's revealed revelation implies that God was not particularly concerned with clearly communicating the truth. But of course this simply can't be.

There is a side effect of Sola Scriptura which Protestants ignore. Since Sola Scriptura assumes that anyone can properly interpret the Bible and arrive at the correct interpretation, Protestants should be willing to embrace a variety of interpretations including non-standard ones as long as the proponents have provided adequate Biblical support. Of course, few Protestants are willing to do this because they each consider themselves as the only valid authoritative interpretation authority. For example, Martin Luther considered his interpretation of the scripture to be the correct one. Examples of views with adequate biblical support that should also be acceptable to those believing Sola Scriptura: (1) non-Trinitarian views of Christ, (2) amillennialism, and (3) the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses. The only way to be certain of the truth of a particular interpretation which has adequate biblical support is with the genuine Holy Spirit-inspired interpretative authority.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

The Bible Contradicts Sola Scriptura

There are many passages which refute Sola Scriptura.

The Bible contradicts Sola Scriptura:

The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Tim 3:15)

It is the church which is the pillar of truth, not the Bible.

The following two Biblical passages effectively refute the notion of Sola Scriptura:

And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. (Acts 8:30-31)

In order to understand the scriptures someone must instruct. But the question is, who is qualified to do so? If the scripture is all that is needed then why do we need people to interpret it and to instruct others? And why do the various Protestant interpretations contradict? If there is to be an authoritative interpretation it must be from a single Spirit-inspired source.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Pet 1:19,20)

Who is qualified to interpret? The word we of verse 19 refers to the apostles and those they pass the message of the gospel on to. 2 Peter 2:1-2 introduces the topic of false teaching and heresy which the early church fought. It was the orthodox church leaders who were leading the fight against heresy.

The biblical passages which refute Sola Scriptura can be divided into several categories:

The passage refers to the Old Testament and not the New Testament.
The passage stresses the spoken message and not the written Bible.
The passage refers to the "Word of God" meaning the gospel, and not to the Bible.
The passage affirms that scripture is useful or beneficial in some way which, of course, it is. But this does not mean that it is the only thing which is useful or beneficial.

There are many passages in the Bible which contradict Sola Scriptura. Protestants typically "explain" these passages by ...

ignoring them
insisting that they support Sola Scriptura (but they don't)
quoting other passages which do support Sola Scriptura (deflection)

I prefer to accept these passages as they are.

Quotes	My comments
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11	The word "scriptures" refers to the Old Testament. The "word" is what they heard preached — they compared this to the Old Testament to see if it was in was in harmony.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12	The Bible is all these things. But this verse does not say that the Bible is all that is necessary. Nor does this verse say that the "word of God" is limited to the written words in the Bible.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15	They are to stand firm in the traditions, including oral traditions.
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 2 Thessalonians 3:6	Tradition is the measure of true faith.
The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15	The Bible says that the church, not the Bible, is the pillar of truth.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Sola Scriptura did not become mainstream until the Protestant Reformation

Sola Scriptura appears in earnest with Wycliffe and Hus in the 1300's. It was mentioned occasionally in the very early centuries of the church and was refuted by the early church fathers, but note: in those early days those who were opposed to Sola Scriptura were orthodox in their faith and those who used Sola Scriptura as a basis for their views were clearly heretics (such as Arians) — even Protestants admit this.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

The Canon

The Canon was determined by the Early Church Fathers and, in fact, cannot be derived from the pages of the Bible itself — we must trust their conclusions. They decided which books to include in the Canon (because they were apostolic and accurately taught the faith) and which books to reject.

The criteria used in determining which books and letters should be included in the Canon:

Discover which were written by the Apostles and their assistants.
Ensure that the orthodox faith was taught.
Ensure that forgeries were not included.
Ensure that heretical writings were not included.
Ensure that mistranslations were not included.

The original Christian Greek Old Testament canon included some books and writings (called Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical) which the Protestant Reformers later rejected. These writings were included in the Septuagint (written in Greek) and in the 1611 King James Bible. Around 90 A.D. a group of Jewish Rabbis decided to discard these writings from the Hebrew Old Testament because they were originally written in Greek instead of Hebrew (read more here).

The Protestant Reformers discarded the Apocrypha because these writings contain doctrines which they consider false (such as purgatory, the role of works in salvation, and the immaculate conception of Mary). (I should note that I consider these doctrines to be true.)

In my opinion, it is not really that big of an issue whether or not we accept the Apocrypha. These writings don't effect any significant doctrine. People commonly assume that the doctrine of Purgatory can only be determined from the Apocrypha, but this is not the case. Here is the passage in question:

Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. (2 Macc 12:46)

This historical passage speaks about the Jewish practice and belief at the time. But the New Testament also includes a passage with this same doctrine in the context of Christian practice and belief:

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?(1 Cor 15:29)

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Biblical Interpretation

How can we be sure that our interpretations of the Bible are correct? Why are there so many different interpretations of key passages? Is the Catholic Church's claim to being the only true authority in biblical interpretation correct?

There are hermeneutical principles we can use to interpret the Bible. But if we look at the writings of the various Bible scholars over the centuries, we find a variety of differing viewpoints. The creeds formulate doctrines on certain matters, such as the Trinity, but these creedal statements have developed over time and even contradict one another. The Catholic Church claims to be the only authority to properly interpret the Bible and sort out these difficult issues. Who can we trust?

Why would God give us His word yet make it so difficult to understand?

The problem is that without accepting a single interpretive authority, we will be forever coming up with our own particular interpretations which will contradict the interpretations of others. We could attempt to find the common set of interpretations that everybody can agree on, but there is practically nothing of significance in this category.

There is another approach to resolve the problem, which I discuss merely to highlight the issues involved. I don't seriously present this option as a viable alternative. This approach is to not use any doctrinal formulations at all but to merely repeat what the Bible says about a topic. An example of this approach follows:

The Trinity as an Example

The Trinity is a key doctrine of the Bible. It has developed over the centuries as people struggled with heretical teachings. Each new formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity came closer to expressing the modern doctrine until there was stability with Augustine's statement and the modern view of the Trinity was established.

But did Paul understand the Trinity in the modern form? I suspect not. What seems clear in the New Testament is that Paul (and others) understood the following key points:

There is one God
Jesus, the Son, is God
The Father is God
Jesus had a relationship with the Father
The Holy Spirit is God
There is no contradiction between the "oneness" and the "manyness" of God

The modern doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond these simple understandings as it attempts to define, explain, and defend the doctrine against attacks from various heretical views.

Two important questions for Protestants to consider are, (1) "If we are committed to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, why should we accept the doctrine of the Trinity at all since it clearly goes beyond the statements of the Biblical text and even adds to Paul's concept?" and (2) "What justification is there for believing in doctrinal formulations that took centuries to develop?"

A Possible Solution to the Dilemma

One possible solution to this dilemma is to adopt a simpler view of Christian doctrine. (As I mentioned previously, I don't consider this a viable alternative). In this solution we would not formulate doctrines at all and would merely:

Understand the New Testament statements as they are without "translating" them into doctrinal formulations, and
Use the creedal formulations only to guard against heresy (since that is what motivated the creeds in the first place).

This solution is more true to the principle of Sola Scriptura although it still has these fatal problems:

There is no way to know what the Canon should be.
There is no way to determine the principle of Sola Scriptura — it must be merely assumed.
There is no way to know that the Bible is inspired and inerrant.

The significance of this alternative is that rather than attempting to understand difficult doctrinal statements (creeds), we would instead limit our understanding to the words and ideas of the Bible. For example, we would prefer to understand the words of the apostle Paul under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than the words of Augustine. The readers and hearers could then judge for themselves how to understand these inspired words without formulating doctrinal statements.

Thus, when we considered the Trinity, for example, we would content ourselves with understanding what the New Testament asserts about the Trinity and de-emphasize the creedal statements about the Trinity. By insisting that the creedal statement is the correct understanding instead of viewing the New Testament statements as sufficient, we are in danger of making the Church Fathers our authority for understanding the Bible rather than using the Bible itself as the final word on the matter. Doing so contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

We would then have the freedom to understand the words of the Bible in whatever manner we chose, using the creeds as our guide to keep from misunderstanding God's intent and drifting off into heretical views. But the side effects of this procedure are that there would not be a unity of belief and the church would be fragmented. This alternative is very unsatisfying as I have previously indicated. Yet to be true to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura this is really the only viable alternative, otherwise we are inadvertently making the church fathers or the Protestant reformers our authority in violation of Sola Scriptura. There really is no satisfying solution to this problem other than to accept an interpretive authority.

To illustrate the difficulties I have highlighted let us consider various viewpoints that are not accepted by mainstream Protestant doctrinal understanding but which result from this process of doctrinal definition. For example, the doctrine of "modality" (that there is one person of God who operates in three modes) was developed by focusing on trying to explain what the Bible leaves unsaid and to understand its meaning beyond what is explicitly stated. The Bible doesn't consider how to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the oneness of God and the manyness of the three persons of the Godhead. By going beyond what the Bible explicitly asserts the modalists have developed a doctrine that is troublesome and problematic. They should have contented themselves with either (1) understanding the simple statements of the Bible on the topic, or (2) accepting the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by the early church.

Summary of this Alternative

Without the obvious solution of accepting an interpretative authority, there is only one other possible solution (but it is not very satisfying and does not provide a unified church). To reiterate the point, the two aspects of this solution are:

Rather than dwell on creedal statements and formulated doctrines, we would instead focus on the statements of the Bible. Doctrines and topics that fall into this category are Calvinism, Trinity, Eschatology, Genesis, Faith, Sin and many others.
We would use the creeds and the writings of the Early Church Fathers as a guide to assist us in avoiding heretical viewpoints — but not in place of the statements of the Bible.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Role of Church Fathers

The previous sections suggest that the Church Fathers have an important role in our understanding of the Bible and its doctrines. Specifically, we depend on the Church Fathers in three ways:

The Early Church Fathers confirmed which books properly belong in the Canon.
The Church Fathers confirmed that the Bible is inerrant.
The Church Fathers formulated doctrinal and creedal statements as they fought against heresy. We should refer to these statements so that we can learn from their experience.

The Catholic Church claims that the Church Fathers played a key role in determining correct doctrine because the Church inaugurated by Christ is the ultimate authority in matters of faith, doctrine, practice and morals, and this Church includes people. The writings of the Church Fathers are to be used as a guide to assist us in avoiding the errors that others have made.

When we read and study the writings of the Church Fathers as they fought against heresy we have to consider the key issues just as they did. Doing this keeps us from falling into the same errors that others did. And thinking about things from the point of view of the Church Fathers helps us avoid heretical views on modern issues as they come up.

This is, of course, the role that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches have provided for nearly 2,000 years. Only a divinely-inspired interpretation authority can possibly correctly determine which writings of the Church Fathers are true and which are merely man's opinions.

The writings of the Church Fathers are not inerrant. Because of this we must judge what they say by comparing it (1) with the Bible, (2) with reality, and (3) with the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. Just because the writings of the Church Fathers are not inerrant is not to say that their writings are not valuable — to the contrary, they are very valuable and useful for the reasons already stated.

In studying the topic of End Time Prophecy I discovered a striking proof that some of the Church Fathers made an error. This concerns their view of the millennium. Six of the Church Fathers wrote things concerning a 1,000 year millennium which from our vantage point are clearly wrong. They are:

Barnabas 130 A.D.
Irenaeus 150 A.D.
Aviricius Marcellus 163 A.D.
Cyprian 258 A.D.
Commodianus 305 A.D.
Lactantius 325 A.D.

These six all affirmed that human history would last exactly 6,000 years. But this is incorrect for two reasons:

Starting at 4,004 B.C. (Bishop Ussher's date and the earliest date anyone has ever proposed for the creation of Adam) and adding 6,000 years results in the date 1997 A.D (using the solar year) or the early 1900's (using the lunar year of 360 days, which is the year usually used for prophetic analysis). Most young-earth proponents usually allow for a date of 10,000 to 15,000 B.C. for the creation of Adam which makes the problem even worse.
The scientific evidence testifies that the earth and the universe are very old. In this case Adam was created somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 B.C.

If they got this wrong then their entire end-time viewpoint collapses since the idea of 6,000 years of human history is foundational to their viewpoint. This idea originated with the Jews who interpreted the six days of creation as 1,000 year periods of time. The seventh "day of rest" therefore is the millennium.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

The Alternative

The alternative to Sola Scriptura. The question is, "What is the final authority for Christian truth, doctrine, faith, and moral teaching?" The answer: A Holy Spirit-inspired teaching authority is required, which teaches:

The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God. It contains truth and is free from error, but must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit-inspired teaching authority to guarantee correct interpretation. Not all truths are in the Bible.
The only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity. There is no salvation outside of His sacrifice on the cross.
We are saved by faith which works, because faith without works is dead faith. (James 2:17)

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Bible is Incomplete

There are many important issues in church life about which the Bible is silent. There is no good reason to assume that this means that we can invent whatever information we wish to fill these gaps. Rather, it is more reasonable to assume that the validly-ordained church leaders are guided by the Holy Spirit to provide this information. There is also the precedent from the Old Testament. It would be more reasonable to model church life and practice based on Old Testament Israel in the absence of clear biblical instruction to the contrary.

By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (1 Cor 15:2)

Not everything that Paul preached to them was written down yet he considers this information to be essential to salvation. How are we to hear about all of this just from the Bible?

Many important topics are simply missing in the New Testament (for example, the specifications for how to conduct church community worship services). Do we really have complete freedom to do whatever we choose in these areas? And shouldn't we consult early church teaching and practice?

The writers of the New Testament didn't feel they needed to address every topic in writing because the church leaders were addressing them in person. These biblical writers didn't know yet about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and they did not do a very good job of providing support for Sola Scriptura in their writings.

An example of the problems with Sola Scriptura is that the Bible nowhere teaches what a worship service should be like. But rather than conclude from this fact that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false, Protestants instead assume that they have complete freedom to do whatever they want concerning topics which are not mentioned in the Bible (But the Bible doesn't teach this). This is madness!

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

"I believe it because I believe it" ...

A thoughtful Protestant friend admitted that he couldn't prove Sola Scriptura, but merely assumed it to be true. If Protestants considered the implications of Sola Scriptura, they would discover that it is a troubling doctrine.

There are serious flaws with Sola Scriptura ...

The Bible doesn't list which books should be in the Bible.
The New Testament never states that it is the inerrant Word of God.
The Bible doesn't describe how to interpret it. As a result, there are many contradictory interpretations, some which are quite serious.
The Bible states that tradition is necessary to know the truth.
There are topics about which the Bible is silent.
The Bible states that the church is the foundation of truth. (It never makes this claim about the Bible.)

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

What Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura ...

Quotes

My comments

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

Chap. 1, Para. 6, The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

This quote states that the Bible contains everything necessary for salvation. These things are ...

expressly set down in Scripture
may be deduced from Scripture

But, the Bible states ...

Good works (and faith) are necessary for salvation.
Ordination must be by unbroken succession from the apostles (no "self-ordination").
The bread and wine of communion are the body and blood of Christ, they are not merely symbols.
Those in heaven (Saints) intercede for us on earth, and we can pray to them.
There is only one church and it is a human (and divine) institution.
The church is "round 2" of the first covenant. Therefore, worship should have priests, a high priest (pope), sacrifice, liturgy, and a liturgical calendar.
Consecrated virginity is desirable.
The church is the foundation of truth.
Mary has a special role.
Purgatory is in the Bible.
Christ's church would never fail (no need for a Protestant "reformation").
No rapture, no literal 1,000 year earthly kingdom.

The Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches are the only churches which teach these Biblical doctrines.

Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word

Chap. 1, Para. 6, The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

This quote states that the Holy Spirit illuminates our understanding.

But what to do when the Holy Spirit illuminates me by providing one interpretation which contradicts the interpretation of another who is also illuminated by the Holy Spirit? There must be a single Holy Spirit-inspired interpretation authority such as that of the Teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

Chap. 1, Para. 6, The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

This quote states that there are areas of spiritual life which are outside of the Bible ...

worship of God
church governance

This statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith seems arbitrary to me. It provides a loophole to get around the fact that there are topics which are not addressed in the Bible. The reason certain topics are not in the Bible is because these topics were addressed by the church and the liturgy.

Also, where in the Bible does it state that we are to derive principles which we then use in ordering our lives?

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Chap. 1, Para. 7, The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

This quote states that everybody can understand the Bible when it comes to issues of salvation. Only certain people can interpret the Bible in other areas.

But who decides which passages are easy to understand and which are difficult (and require interpretation by experts?) I noticed that the difficult passages are actually easy to understand — but they contradict cherished Protestant doctrines (heretical doctrines which were invented during the Protestant "reformation").

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

Chap. 1, Para. 9, The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

This quote states that the clear passages should be used to illuminate the difficult passages.

But the so-called difficult passages are actually clear if you are willing to believe what they say.

By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals).

Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Protestant Understanding of Sola Scriptura

This quote states that scripture alone is the source for all doctrine and practice.

Sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says.

Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Protestant Understanding of Sola Scriptura

Catholics believe this.

Second, the Bible is sufficient: it is all that is necessary for faith and practice. For Protestants "the Bible alone" means "the Bible only" is the final authority for our faith.

Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Protestant Understanding of Sola Scriptura

This quote states that nothing is needed except the Bible.

Third, the Scriptures not only have sufficiency but they also possess final authority. They are the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters. However good they may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, Popes, and Councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible.

Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Protestant Understanding of Sola Scriptura

This quote states that there is no final authority except the Bible. This includes Protestant theologians, scholars, preachers, and teachers.

Fourth, the Bible is perspicuous (clear). The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things. This does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. Indeed, Protestants accept the great theological and Christological pronouncements of the first four ecumenical Councils. What is more, most Protestants have high regard for the teachings of the early fathers, though obviously they do not believe they are infallible. So this is not to say there is no usefulness to Christian tradition, but only that it is of secondary importance.

Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Protestant Understanding of Sola Scriptura

This quote states that anyone can understand the essential teachings of the Bible.

Fifth, Scripture interprets Scripture. This is known as the analogy of faith principle. When we have difficulty in understanding an unclear text of Scripture, we turn to other biblical texts. For the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. In the Scriptures, clear texts should be used to interpret the unclear ones.

Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Protestant Understanding of Sola Scriptura

This quote states that clear passages are used to interpret difficult passages.

I became Catholic because, as a fundamentalist, evangelical Protestant, I took these ideas to heart. But ...

I noticed that the Protestant teachers and preachers contradicted each other on important issues.
More disturbing, I noticed that they contradicted the Bible.
I studied the Bible for myself to see what it said (since it is the final authority, not the "traditions of men").
I came up with doctrines which were very much like Catholicism. This, before I knew about Catholicism.
I sought out a church which matched the Bible. Only the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches match the Bible.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

The early church didn't have a Bible for centuries ...

Therefore, according to Sola Scriptura, there must be two categories of Christians ...

Those who need the Bible (us modern Christians)
Those who don't need the Bible (the Christians living before 400 A.D.)

But the Bible doesn't teach this.

Quotes

My comments

Pope Innocent I, in 405, sending a list of the Sacred Books to . . . Exsuperius of Toulouse.

Catholic Encyclopedia,
Canon of the New Testament

On February 20, 405 A.D., Pope Innocent I wrote to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse, and sent him at his request, a list of the books that are part of the Bible

William G. Most, Salvation History

Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon.

catholic.net, Protestants and Sola Scriptura

It wasn't until about 400 A.D. that the canon of scripture was finally settled. I should note that this canon included the so-called Apocrypha, books of the Old Testament which were rejected by the Protestant Reformers.

Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: . . . On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

A.D. 397, Third Council of Carthage

Notice that the primary purpose of the Bible is that it be read in church. This could only occur in liturgical churches (such as Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian) which have Bible readings (as opposed to long sermons instead of readings as in many Protestant churches).

Notice also that the church celebrated the anniversaries of martyrs.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Protestants have spiritual authority other than the Bible ...

A few examples ...

The rule that there are some passages which are easy to interpret and some which are difficult. But the Bible doesn't say this.
That church governance (as one example) can be determined without the Bible (as long as it adheres to Biblical principles). But the Bible doesn't say this.
The canon of scripture. The list of books in the Bible is not specified in the Bible (church councils and the popes determined it).
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible (except by way of interpretation).
The many Protestant doctrines contained in books of systematic theology are not in the Bible. The Bible doesn't state these doctrines yet Protestants accept them as true.
The rules for the principles of interpreting scripture are not specified in the Bible.

These facts don't disprove Sola Scriptura, they merely demonstrate that Protestants don't really wholeheartedly believe it.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

It results in a fragmented church ...

Quotes	My comments
Adherents of sola scriptura, by necessity, are forced to not only admit diversity of belief and opinion but to affirm it and celebrate it. They must do so because sola scriptura necessarily results in divergent, contradictory and mutable doctrines, doctrines which not only contradict contemporaneous beliefs but historical ones as well. The Problems of Biblical Reductionism	The contradictions of various Bible teachers and theologians were very troubling to me.
Christ doesn't want His body to be broken up into thousands of competing and contradictory sects. Ken Hensley, Sola Scriptura	The doctrine of Sola Scriptura results, of necessity, in a fragmented and disunified church. Everyone interprets the Bible as they see fit and they all come up with contradictory doctrines.
Sola scriptura may be summarized by saying that sola scriptura is unhistorical, unbiblical and unworkable. catholic.net, Sola Scriptura	A nice summary.

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

Links ...

The change of attitude toward the Bible, by Joseph Henry Thayer

Offsite Links ...

An Outline of the Catholic Case Against Sola Scriptura

Is Sola Scriptura Reasonable?

Discussion on Sola Scriptura with a Fundamentalist

Apologetics Backward

Article originally written in November, 2002

Statement of Faith | About the author

Protestantism | North Forest Home | Top of page

John Shepard

email: js18@northforest.org

http://www.northforest.org/ProtestantErrors/SolaScriptura_org.html

Revised: Aug 15, 2011