Introduction

The doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) began as a concern for proper authority in religious matters. By authority is meant something like that which has the right to compel agreement. A religious authority would be one that has the right to compel faith (orthodoxy) and moral actions (orthopraxy). This does not mean that one cannot make free choices in these matters, but simply that in cases of faith and morals, a person’s refusal to agree with the authority would signal an objective wrong on his part (should that person wish to remain in the religion at least).

It seems clear that all human authority in religious matters would be superseded by God’s. Now, since God is clearly the authority for a Christian, and since the only record of God’s communication that all Christian bodies believe to be inspired is the Bible, the Bible must have the top spot as far as authorities go. This was the original sense of sola scriptura—the Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals—not that it was the only authority. Sola scriptura meant that Scripture alone was the ultimate authority in religious matters, as opposed to including Church tradition or the teachings of men.See Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, Ida.: Canon Press, 2001), or James R. Payton Jr., Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2010). For a critical response to this idea, see Bryan Cross, “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority”, Called to Communion, November 4, 2009, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/.

Considering the number of angles one could take in responding to sola scriptura, sufficient response to it could easily become an entire book, and covering all those angles is not the purpose of the present writing.One such book weighs in at over 650 pages: Robert A. Sungenis, ed., Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Goleta, Cal.: Queenship, 1998). However, given that the issue of sola scriptura weighs so heavily in one’s consideration of Catholicism, it deserves some comment.

Sola Scriptura and Biblical Sufficiency

“Is the Bible sufficient?” This question lies at the heart of many Catholic-Protestant debates. A major roadblock to coming to agreement is that a thing can be said to be sufficient in more than one way. Here I would like to explain two meanings: formal and material sufficiency. Grasping the distinction between these two types of sufficiency is critical to understanding the debate. Material sufficiency concerns whether the Bible contains all the information one needs to learn the faith, and formal sufficiency relates to whether the Bible can be properly interpreted all by itself.

A helpful analogy is that of a recipe and a dish’s ingredients. Although one might have all the ingredients (“materials”) necessary to prepare a certain dish, one must also have the recipe for cooking (“forming”) them into the right kind of food. In this case, neither the recipe nor the ingredients are sufficient to prepare the dish—both are required. The real debate over sola scriptura is whether the Bible is both materially and formally sufficient for the faith, or whether it is only materially sufficient. Based on verses that extol the Scriptures (such as Ps 19 or 2 Tim 3:16-17), some argue that the Bible alone is sufficient in both senses, thus requiring no extrabiblical interpretive authority. The problem for this view is explaining the numerous disagreements and divisions among the very groups who make that claim.See Douglas Beaumont, “Theological Abstrusity”, Douglas Beaumont, April 24, 2013, accessed May 28, 2015, http://douglasbeaumont.com/2013/04/24/on-protestant-abstrusity/.

Now, it is clear that the Bible is interpreted in many ways. This is not to say that the Bible is 100 percent wide open for anybody’s interpretation (just as a given collection of ingredients cannot make any kind of food), but it does seem to accommodate more than one interpretation in many cases. Since the Bible must be interpreted in order to function as an authority in the life of the believer, some principle must be in play to ensure that we get out of it what we are supposed to get out of it. Whatever that is (philosophy, science, theology, inspiration, angelic explanation) would be the formal principle or principles. Understood this way, it seems clear that the Bible is not formally sufficient on its own. If it were, there would not be disagreement over its meaning (or at least not nearly as much as there is).

This is no attack on the Bible. It is no more wrong or demeaning to say that the Bible is only materially sufficient than it is ridiculous to complain that milk and eggs and bread are not sufficient to make french toast. Only if the Bible were actually both materially and formally sufficient would such a statement be wrong or demeaning. Further, it seems pretty clear from the Bible itself that more is required than the text alone (e.g., Lk 24:27; Acts 8:26-31; 17:1-3; 18:24-26; 2 Pet 3:16). At the very least, knowledge of reality is needed—ior words merely point to things in reality. So our understanding of reality will clearly affect our interpretation. This is just an issue with texts—not the Bible in particular. And it is not an issue that goes away just because a book is inspired.

Sola Scriptura and Unity

Unity among Christians was clearly one of the chief concerns of Christ (Jn 17) and the apostles (e.g., 1 Cor 1; Eph 4). This unity is not only a spiritual reality but a physical one as well, for Jesus taught that the oneness of the Church would be a witness to the world (Jn 17:23). Protestantism, in principle and in practice, cannot unify Christians. Sola scriptura effectively makes unity in moral code, doctrinal creed, and liturgical practice impossible, for every appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture, and men interpret the Scriptures in radically different ways. Would Christ set up his Church in such a way that would necessarily lead to division and dissent? In fact, the principle of sola scriptura makes answering the question “What is the Christian view of ____?” difficult if not impossible; hence, Christians divide.

To resolve the interpretative problem, the Protestant has recourse to one of two options: (1) appeal to the perspicuity of Scripture or (2) attempt to establish the leaders of the church as the authoritative interpreters of Scripture. The sheer number of denominations clearly indicates that the former is false (i.e., the Bible is not so clear). The latter cannot escape the initial problem of interpretive authority because the individual believer must decide which church has teaching authority. In order to decide this, he must find which church he believes interprets the Scriptures correctly. Hence, the individual is still the authority on the true teaching of the church. An excellent essay that develops the latent problems in the second attempt to resolve Protestant theology’s interpretive mess is written by Bryan Cross. In this essay, well worth a careful reading, Cross responds to Keith Mathison’s book The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Further, Michael Liccione has written a follow-up essay that poignantly spells out the fundamental philosophical issues in the debate.See Cross, “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority”, and Michael Liccione, “Mathison’s Reply to Cross and Judisch: A Largely Philosophical Critique”, Called to Communion, February 18, 2011, accessed September 1, 2014, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/mathisons-reply-to-cross-and-judisch-a-largely-philosophical-critique/.

One could object that the Catholic convert is in the same predicament as the Protestant, for he seems to be doing the same thing he accuses the Protestant of doing (tu quoque fallacy)—that is, interpreting the Scriptures and then deciding that the Catholic Church is interpreting the Scriptures correctly. In reality, however, the Catholic convert is not doing what the Protestant does. The Catholic Church does not ask converts to read the Scriptures and decide for themselves if Catholic teaching is true; rather, the Catholic Church makes a historical claim that the interpretive authority she has is clearly evident from a study of Church history. Christ received his authority from the Father and then conferred that authority on Peter and the apostles, who in turn conferred their authority on their successors on down to the present day. The Catholic stance is not rationalistic, for the Church does not attempt to prove she has this authority (rational proofs for articles of faith are impossible, for if proof were possible, faith would be superfluous). Rather, the convert embraces the Catholic teaching by faith, for without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6).For further reading, see Bryan Cross, “The Tu Quoque”, Called to Communion, May 24, 2010, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/the-tu-quoque/.

Sola Scriptura and the Bible

One of the biggest issues with sola scriptura is that the Bible says nowhere that it alone functions as the ultimate authority for faith and morals (or anything else—see below). This makes sola scriptura an authoritative extrabiblical tradition (the very thing it was supposed to rule out). There are, however, many texts that indicate that both the written word of the apostles and the spoken word of the apostles (“tradition” in Catholic theology) are equally authoritative (Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15; Jn 21:24-25; 1 Cor 11:2; 15:3, 11; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim 1:13; 2:2). Furthermore, the Scriptures do not teach that the Bible is the pillar of truth; rather, the Church is called the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

The book of Acts gives a clear example of how the Church is supposed to handle doctrinal disputes. In Acts 15, Luke records a doctrinal dispute over the status of Gentiles in the Church. A council is called, and the leaders of the early Church convene to give an authoritative pronouncement of correct faith and practice for the whole Church. The last word on the debate is given by Peter, and then James stands up to confirm Peter’s pronouncement by quoting an obscure passage from Amos that seems to have nothing to do with the matter at hand. However, James explains that the passage in Amos indicates the full membership of Gentiles in the Church. What is most interesting about the passage in Acts is the role that the Bible plays at the council. The Bible is not the judge of the dispute at hand, which one would expect if sola scriptura were true. Rather, the Bible is the witness to an authoritative pronouncement of the teaching body of the Church, which is what one would expect if the Catholic teaching on authority is true.See Jason Stellman, “I Fought the Church, and the Church Won”, Called to Communion, September 23, 2012, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/i-fought-the-church-and-the-church-won/.

Recognizing that direct biblical support for sola scriptura is not to be found, Protestants have tried to find biblical justification for the doctrine by arguing indirectly from other passages (which is a legitimate method). These will be briefly addressed below.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

The Scripture passages that are most commonly referenced to defend sola scriptura are, at best, evidence of the principle or simply do not contradict it, but the Scriptures in no way establish the principle. For example, Protestants routinely appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17—“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”—as evidence of sola scriptura, but this passage in no way endorses this position. Paul is certainly pointing out that the Scriptures are the preeminent guide for the moral life, but he is in no way claiming that Scripture supplies one with a comprehensive view of doctrine, worship, ecclesial government, et cetera.

Further, Protestant apologists usually attempt to poke holes in the Catholic view of authority without addressing the numerous facts of Church history that do not make sense if sola scriptura is true. For example, how should one understand the bizarre situation in which the early Church would find herself if sola scriptura were true? Would the authoritative spoken word of the apostles become non-authoritative once the apostles died? Must the Christians in the churches that Paul established forget what he taught them about the sacraments, worship, Church structure, discipline, et cetera once he died? How could early Christians limit their authority to the New Testament when the first list of New Testament books is found in the writing of Saint Athanasius (A.D. 367) and the debate on the canon extended beyond the time of the Protestant Reformation?

In addition, how does one explain that when heretical groups based their positions on the Bible the Church Fathers also referenced used apostolic succession, and not the Bible alone, as the measuring stick of Orthodoxy?See Pope Saint Clement I (A.D. 70), Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 189), Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 200), and Saint Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 254). For quotations from these and other Church Fathers regarding authority and the early Church, see Jimmy Akin, “Apostolic Tradition”, in The Fathers Know Best (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2010), 166-74. How does the principle of sola scriptura consistently line up with the historical fact that the Scriptures are the effect of true apostolic teaching (correct orthodox doctrine) and not the cause of orthodox teaching? These and many other problems arise when one accepts sola scriptura, while the Catholic paradigm on authority has no problem in explaining this fact.

Psalm 19

In his article “The Sufficiency of Scripture”, John MacArthur argues that Scripture alone is sufficient for every situation. He states, “Psalm 19:7-9 is the most monumental and concise statement on the sufficiency of Scripture ever made. Penned by David under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, these three verses offer unwavering testimony from God Himself about the sufficiency of His Word for every situation.”See John MacArthur, “The Sufficiency of Scripture”, Grace to You, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.gty.org/resources/Distinctives/DD11/The-Sufficiency-of-Scripture; adapted from John MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1998). MacArthur’s equation of “God’s glorious revelation” and “Scripture” is questionable, though, and there are several issues with his use of this psalm to argue this “total sufficiency” position.

First, Psalm 19:7-9 is speaking of God’s law—not Scripture in general. There is more to Scripture than God’s law (which was originally spoken—not written, and could have remained so forever), so they are not necessarily the same thing. Here is what the text says in the translation MacArthur cites:

     The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;

     The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

     The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;

     The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

     The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;

     The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether.New American Standard Bible (NASB); emphasis added.

None of the subjects in this passage is Scripture, yet that is the subject of MacArthur’s alleged proof. The only way the argument can be made to appear sound is for MacArthur to expand the words’ definitions and add his own commentary to those expanded definitions.MacArthur does indeed do this; e.g., fear is said to be a synonym for God’s Word. Second, even if the subject of each phrase were Scripture, David’s descriptions (“perfect”, “sure”, “right”, “clean”, and “true”) do not equate with “sufficient”. Again, the only way the argument can be supported is by substituting MacArthur’s commentary for the plain text.

Third, what David said when he wrote this psalm had to be true at the time he wrote it. Following MacArthur’s argument, then, the Old Testament (which was unfinished at the time) must have been “sufficient for every situation”. But was it? Where does the Old Testament (even after completion) explain the gospel message or reveal the Church? Where does Scripture explain how we should view stem cell research or what kinds of music to listen to? Where, in fact, does Scripture indicate its own table of contents?

It seems that the “most monumental and concise statement ever made” on scriptural sufficiency requires more extrapolation than it should, and that something more is needed has certainly not been disproven from this passage.MacArthur’s commentary was seventeen times longer than the passage itself!

1 Corinthians 4:6

One verse that is sometimes cited as a definitive biblical statement on sola scriptura is a small infinitive phrase in 1 Corinthians 4:6: “not to go beyond what is written”.The New International Version (NIV), alone among the major translations, phrases this as a distinct command: “Do not go beyond what is written.” That this small phrase is a difficult text to nail down is indicated by its numerous interpretations (both Protestant and Catholic), but if there is a single proof text for sola scriptura, this is it. The first problem with using 1 Corinthians 4:6 as proof of sola scriptura is that many prominent Protestant thinkers did not see it as such, even though they affirmed sola scriptura.See Douglas Beaumont, “Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 Teach Sola Scriptura?”, Douglas Beaumont, April 20, 2015, accessed May 28, 2015, http://douglasbeaumont.com/2015/04/20/does-1-corinthians-46-teach-sola-scriptura/.

Second, although Paul does not mention Scripture or the Bible in this passage, every time Paul uses the Greek word translated “written” here, he is referring to the Old Testament—but limiting it to the Old Testament would mean that 1 Corinthians 4:6 did not apply to itself!

Third, generalizing “what is written” to include only the Old and New Testament writings would be contrary to Paul’s command to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15; emphasis added; cf. 2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2). The idea that everything an apostle taught orally was eventually reduced to writing is itself an extrabiblical idea (cf. 1 Cor 11:34; 2 Cor 2:4; cf. 2 Cor 7:8; 3 Jn 13). And what of the apostles (or Jesus himself!) who never wrote any Scripture?

Fourth, the apostles themselves taught from sources outside the Bible (e.g., Acts 7:53; 17:28; 26:14; Jude 9, 14-15). If they could use extrabiblical writings to write the Bible, then the principle that one cannot go beyond the Bible seems awkward at best.

Finally, given that the primary concern of 1 Corinthians is clearly that of unity, and that in the letter’s opening section Paul addresses disunity caused by unbiblical assessments of ministers (cf. the textual connection between Paul and Apollos in 1 Cor 1:12; 3:4; 3:22; and 4:6, along with his mention of “numerous guides” both in 1 Cor 1:10 and 4:14), plus the judgment theme leading right up to 4:6, it seems best to me to take “not to go beyond what is written” to be referring to the proper biblical standards of ministerial judgment.

Sola Scriptura and the Biblical Canon

An odd issue for sola scriptura adherents is that, even if one could find sufficient biblical support for the idea, one would first have to prove that his proof texts are really in the Bible in the first place—for the principle of sola scriptura cannot give one a list of the authoritative books that belong in the Bible. Protestants usually attempt to resolve this problem in one of two ways: (1) appeal to the testimony of the Holy Spirit to confirm which books are canonical or (2) make theological arguments for the list of books that belong in the canon.

The first way cannot explain how it is that many godly, Spirit-led Christians throughout history have disagreed on the canon, so the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the human heart is not sufficient. The latter attempt also fails to produce an authoritative canon for any list of criteria that a book must meet to be included in the Bible; it either leaves out books that Christians agree are canonical or includes books that are not canonical. Moreover, a list of criteria can be made only after one knows which books are canonical. Finally, a criteria list fails the historical test, for this was not the way the canon was initially formed. (See appendix 1.)

Sola Scriptura and Church Tradition

It is often claimed that adding anything to the Bible to interpret it authoritatively puts those things “above Scripture”. In many ways, though, trust in the Bible itself requires trust in extrabiblical traditions. Now, if the Bible itself depends on extrabiblical traditions, how can one claim that no extrabiblical traditions may be added to the Bible? Here are some of the important things tradition must support if the New Testament is to be identified and trusted.A related problem for Protestants is that if the Church was still trustworthy (however this is explained) by the time she defined the canon (in the fourth century at the earliest), why was she not trustworthy when she defined these doctrines? A.D. 90—the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice A.D. 95—apostolic succession A.D. 110—the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist A.D. 110—the necessity of authoritative bishops to the Church A.D. 150—baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism for salvation A.D. 150—the basic structure of the Mass as Christian worship A.D. 155—veneration of saints and their relics A.D. 160—Mary as the New Eve A.D. 170—the use of the word Trinity A.D. 180—the primacy of the Bishop of Rome A.D. 200—“Trinity”, “Person”, “substance” formula.

Table of Contents

Because the Bible has no inspired contents page, one must go outside the Bible to discover which books make it up. Because the Church compiled these books, the Church is trusted to identify the Bible (whether acknowledged or not).

Authorship

Although some take apostolic origin as the test for inclusion in the Bible, many New Testament books do not identify their authors. None of the Gospels identifies its author in the text, nor does Acts or Hebrews. James and John are not identified, and several candidates have been suggested. Both Pauline and Petrine epistles name their authors, but both authors have letters whose authenticity has been questioned by Christians since the early centuries of Christianity (Martin Luther himself discredited several New Testament books in the sixteenth century). In the end, it is the Church that determined which books were considered part of the biblical canon.

Autographa

Since we have none of the original New Testament writings (the autographa), our entire New Testament tradition is based on trust in tradition. Although the textual history for the New Testament is incredibly strong, small errors in the beginning would never be caught later. Thus, we give implicit trust in the Church to keep the text stream clear.

None of this should be upsetting, since nonscriptural traditions are trusted by the New Testament writers in many places,For example: Mt 2:23—The prophecy “He shall be called a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. Mt 23:2—Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament. Acts 15:1-14—Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures. Acts 17:28—Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he teaches at the Areopagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God. Acts 20:7—As for meeting on Sunday, already in the New Testament we seem to find Christians meeting together as a Church on the first day of the week (i.e., Sunday). Although not a watertight case, it does seem that Acts 20:7 and possibly 1 Corinthians 16:2 refer to Christians’ gathering as a Church on Sunday. But by A.D. 115, Ignatius, a bishop, was telling Christians to meet not on the Sabbath but on Sunday (what he calls the “Lord’s Day”—the day when Jesus rose from the dead). Acts 20:35—Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is more blessed to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels. 1 Cor 7:10—Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband. 1 Cor 10:4—Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Numbers 20:2-13. Eph 5:14—Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn—“Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.” Heb 11:37—The author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament. Jas 4:5—James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made”). 2 Pet 1:20—Interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. Jude 9—Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with Satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament. Jude 14-15—Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy, which is not recorded in the Old Testament. oral traditions were often trusted as authoritative,For example: Mt 28:19 (cf. Mk 16:15)—Some who preached the gospel to all creation did not write the Gospel. Mk 16:15—Jesus commands the apostles to “preach”, not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be the sole authority of the Christian faith. Lk 1:1-4—Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ and writes his Gospel only so that they “know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed”. Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received. Jn 8:6-8—Jesus Christ taught orally, the “spoken word”. He did not write a book. The only record that he wrote anything at all is in, “Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.” We do not even know what he wrote. Jn 20:30; 21:25—Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. 1 Cor 5:9-11 and Col 4:16; cf. 2 Pet 3:15-16—Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon; Paul wrote two other letters to Corinth and one to Laodicea that we no longer have. 1 Cor 11:2—Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition. 1 Cor 11:34—Paul says that “[a]bout the other things I will give directions when I come.” We do not have “3 Corinthians” so we do not know what those things were, even if he did write them down. Phil 4:9—Paul says, “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do.” 1 Thess 2:13—Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us”. 1 Thess 3:10—Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face-to-face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough. 2 Thess 2:14-15—Paul says that God has called us “through our gospel”. The fullness of the gospel before the Gospels are written is the apostolic tradition that includes teaching either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thess 3:6—Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. 1 Tim 3:14-15—Paul prefers to speak and not write and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy. 2 Tim 2:2—Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible. 2 Tim 3:14—“[C]ontinue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it.” and the writers even record that authoritative aid is often needed for proper interpretation.For example: Acts 8:30—“Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ ” Heb 5:12—“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word.” 2 Pet 3:16—The Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee that the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to interpret the Scriptures infallibly. Given all this trust in extrabiblical tradition and its eventual authoritative role, one wonders why it is so strenuously objected to by Protestants long after the fact.

Solo Scriptura and Authority

Although sola scriptura is still sometimes expressed along the lines of Scripture (alone) as being the “supreme and final authority in faith and life”,This is the language used by Southern Evangelical Seminary’s doctrinal statement: http://ses.edu/about-us/doctrinal-statement. many Evangelical Christians follow the early Anabaptists in couching sola scriptura more in terms of “solo scriptura”—denying any authority outside of the Bible.For example, Norman Geisler, “A Critical Review of The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison”, Christian Apologetics Journal 4:1 (Spring 2005). If Scripture alone is the ultimate authority, then it is thought that to follow a Bible-only methodology regarding theology, ethics, science, et cetera will keep one safe from the errors of fallible human thinking.The first page of a Google search brought up two representative statements of this popular understanding of sola scriptura: “Scripture alone is called God’s word (cf. Jn.10:35; 2 Tim.3:16; 2 Pt.1:20), and in 1 Cor. 4:6 we are specifically told ‘not to go beyond what is written.’. . . Not once did Jesus speak well about traditions. Neither did Peter nor Paul as he states in Col. 2:8 ‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.’ ” “The Bible’s Tradition of God’s Word Only”, Let Us Reason Ministries, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.letusreason.org/rc23.htm. “The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition. The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible.” “What Is Sola Scriptura?”, GotQuestions.org, accessed May 27, 2015, http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html.

Bible-alone theology may sound very fine when constrained to an abstract ideal, but as has been said, a good hypothesis can “be killed by inches, the death by a thousand qualifications.”Antony Flew, “Theology and Falsification”, in Anthony Flew and Alasdair McIntyre, New Essays in Philosophical Theology (London: SCM Press, 1955), 97, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html. Even allowing that the Bible is the final and ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice, the Bible still must be understood. That is, the Bible’s authoritative teaching resides in the message it conveys—not the physical book itself. And discovering the message of the Bible requires navigating through many layers of human interaction first.

The Bible was written in three ancient languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and (Koine) Greek. Since the average Christian does not understand these ancient languages thoroughly, the Bible he holds is almost certainly a translation of the words of God. But there is a plethora of Bible translation “versions” on the shelf of the average bookstore, and translation issues are not always minor. Choosing any one of them is to rely on the linguistic authority of the translator. One might think this issue could be resolved by learning the original languages—but that would introduce another authority, that of the language instructors.

Even after one learned the original biblical languages, interpretation still enters in. Translation involves far more than simple word replacement. To translate correctly, one must be familiar with how that language was used at the time of the original writing (grammar, cultural context, linguistic innovation, et cetera). In order to master all the elements involved in learning these languages, several additional authorities would have to be relied on.

Even if this arduous task were accomplished, language and translation study give one only knowledge of what ancient texts say—understanding what they mean is another issue. Thus, one must also deal with the hermeneutic layer. This is made all the more difficult because there is no overarching hermeneutic that works for the whole Bible. At least some of the Bible is poetry, metaphor, parable (or proverb), and so forth—and recognition of these things requires extrabiblical knowledge. Recognizing literary devices such as hyperbole and metaphor depends on one’s experience of reality; thus, correct notions of metaphysics are necessary if we are to avoid subjectivity in biblical interpretation.See Thomas A. Howe, Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation (Altamonte Springs, Fla.: Advantage Inspirational, 2005). Either philosophical field could easily take up a lifetime, and the authorities involved in such pursuits are mostly (if not entirely) extrabiblical.

Worse, philosophical knowledge of reality is often insufficient for issues of history and culture. Language meaning might be objectively understood via a proper hermeneutic, but its specific referents can remain unknown. The particular realities that words pick out are not shared by the biblical writers and our average Christian, for they are thousands of years, and thousands of miles, removed from one another—and sometimes important cultural details are lost to history. A thorough knowledge of history and culture is necessary to avoid anachronism and other such errors and to catch subtle remarks that the original readers would have recognized. The Bible causes these issues; it does not solve them. To penetrate this historical-cultural layer, one must once again rely on extrabiblical authorities.

Even if a reader could somehow (miraculously?) manage to meet the above criteria, the job is still not done. For once he knows what a text says and what it means, he must then grasp what it teaches. Here we run into more examples of how Scripture does not supply easy answers. Do the stories of people speaking in tongues in the book of Acts teach us that believers today must do likewise? Is the head covering in 1 Corinthians ii a practice that has some parallel today? Does the acceptance of slavery throughout the Bible indicate that it has an acceptable place in the world today? Why do we practice the Lord’s Supper but not foot washing when Jesus commanded both during the same talk? These sorts of questions cannot be answered simply by knowing what the Bible says or means. Issues of cultural relevance, proper dispensations, audience similarity, general versus particular commands, and so forth all remain. Now subjects such as ethics, moral philosophy, theology, and others come into play. And since it is the Bible that seems to raise these issues, it seems that once again extrabiblical information is required.

Now, even if all of these tremendous extrabiblical interpretive issues were somehow overcome, the biggest challenge yet remains—for before the Bible can be interpreted, it must be identified. One must first choose which “original Bible” to read. For the New Testament alone one must choose between the Minority and the Majority Text traditions (and there are different versions of each of these forms, such as the Nestle-Aland, or the United Bible Society’s, or the Textus Receptus—each having had numerous revisions). The Old Testament, too, has some textual issues—the most notable being that the Hebrew manuscript copies, the Masoretic text, that we have are much later than the original writings. There is also the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, or “LXX”, which is quoted more in the New Testament than the Masoretic text yet sometimes differs considerably from the Hebrew texts we have. As skeptics are happy to point out, few of these manuscripts agree completely. Now, this is not such a huge problem, since, given thousands of comparisons, we can arrive at a pretty solid understanding of what the original must have said. But differences, or variants, remain, and questions need to be answered when it comes to deciding which variants to use when producing the “original” edition. How is an average Christian to choose between them? Unless he is willing to trust in the text-critical authorities, he will have to learn text criticism himself. Worse, unless he wants to trust the people who typed up what is found on these ancient manuscripts, he will have to gain access to all of them directly, from all over the world, and make his own copies. To do otherwise would be to trust extrabiblical authorities.

Complicating this task is the fact that the Bible is not a book. Rather, it is a collection of various writings that are bound together for convenience. But who decided which books are in this collection? We know from history that the canon of the New Testament was determined by councils—but these are extrabiblical authorities. Is the average Christian just as free to jettison the biblical canon as he is the traditional Church creeds and councils? And if he is, on what biblical basis would he do so? How can sola scriptura survive if we cannot be sure of what counts as “scriptura” in the first place? But many claim that the whole point of sola scriptura is to avoid traditions! This introduces yet another authority layer to be overcome—that of tradition.

The Bible warns of following false traditions, but as with false philosophy and false religion, it is the false part that is important.To be consistent in affirming Scripture’s alleged negative outlook on tradition, one must ignore certain verses (e.g., 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; or 1 Cor 11:2)—a practice that is made easier by the NIV translators who purposefully translated the Greek term paradosis as “traditions” in its negative contexts and as “teachings” in its positive references! Now, to be absolutely sure of one’s understanding of Christian doctrine from the Bible alone (i.e., apart from tradition), at least three things must be the case. First, authoritative tradition must have ceased with the apostles (to avoid the self-defeating proposition that the Bible—which teaches that traditions must be trusted—alone is trustworthy). Second, the Bible would have to be perfectly clear in what it teaches (to avoid any possible misunderstanding, each part would have to have this clarity—for if it did not, it may be the case that one part would alter another). Third, everything the apostles wanted taught must have been recorded in Scripture (because the slightest bit of additional information could radically alter our understanding of anything else we read).

The first point begs the question and is self-defeating because the Bible does not teach that authoritative tradition ceased with the apostles. As to the second criterion, the numerous and disparate interpretations of Scripture offered by the very people who proclaim its clarity seem to argue against that position. The third point is even more problematic for sola scriptura as it has been popularly defined, for even if Church tradition after the apostles is not authoritative, and even if Scriptures are perfectly clear, it would have taken only one extra sentence to change everything.As an example, let’s consider Communion (the Lord’s Supper / the Eucharist). Paul told the Corinthians concerning Communion, “About the other things I will give directions when I come” (1 Cor 11:34). Suppose that what he later said to them was, “By the way, Jesus Christ is physically present in the Communion bread and wine.” That one sentence would be a game changer for interpretation of not only 1 Corinthians ii, but John 6 and Matthew 26 as well! Now, we do not seem to know what directions Paul gave concerning Communion when he came to them later. 2 Corinthians says nothing about it. Paul does mention two other letters to the Corinthians that we do not have, so perhaps it was in those. Or maybe in the epistle that he sent to the church at Laodicea (Col 4:16) he said something of interpretive importance. Either way, it did not make it into the Bible—and to be 100 percent certain of his Bible-only understandings, our average Christian would have to know for sure.

Finally, since the Bible does not say that it alone is trustworthy or authoritative, the idea that it is so is a theological one. In many areas, holding to theological positions that are not clearly stated in the Bible is not necessarily a big problem, since many positions are based on theological speculation. Here, however, it becomes a bigger issue, for it would be incoherent to claim that the Bible alone is a trustworthy source of theological information when the Bible itself does not say that it alone is a trustworthy source of theological information. In addition, it would also turn out to be self-defeating since the Bible itself teaches that other sources of revelation exist (e.g., the principles of natural theology and the moral law found in Romans 1 and 2). And, since the Bible actually commands believers to hold to “traditions” that they “heard” (see above), it simply cannot be the case that the Bible’s position is that traditions do not become authoritative until they are written down.

In conclusion, Bible-only theology sounds fine as long as it remains an abstract principle (or slogan). The reality is much messier. At least the following authoritative layers would need to be peeled back before a strict Bible-only theological method could succeed:

     linguistic—to avoid having to trust nonauthoritative translators

     translational-interpretational—to avoid having to trust nonauthoritative interpreters

     hermeneutical-philosophical—to avoid having to trust nonauthoritative philosophers

     historical-cultural—to avoid having to trust nonauthoritative historians

     applicational—to avoid having to trust nonauthoritative teachers

     mystical—to avoid having to trust nonauthoritative personal views

     textual—to avoid having to trust nonauthoritative text critics

     canonical—to avoid having to trust nonauthoritative Church decisions

     traditional—to avoid having to trust nonauthoritative traditions

     theological—to avoid having to trust nonauthoritative theologians

These layers of human interaction are like lenses through which the Bible’s message is seen—and to whatever degree these interpretive layers influence how one understands the Bible’s message, to that degree they have a practical authoritative function. Thus, it seems clear that the Bible in our hands can be depended on to deliver authoritative truth only to the degree that the authorities at each layer can be trusted to deliver authoritative truth—and in the real world, reliance on extrabiblical authority is found at nearly every step of Bible study. Even if the average Christian had the time, materials, and intellect for such an endeavor, he would still realistically have to rely on a host of extrabiblical authorities (teachers, authors, researchers, principles, et cetera) to learn all that he would need to know to become a trustworthy (yet extrabiblical and thus still fallible!) authority himself.See Douglas Beaumont, “Sola Scriptura: Death by a Thousand (or Ten) Qualifications?”, Douglas Beaumont, July 3, 2011, accessed May 28, 2015, http://douglasbeaumont.com/2011/07/03/sola-scriptura-death-by-a-thousand-or-ten-qualifications/.