Sola Scriptura is Self-Refuting

Negative and Positive Proofs from Scripture Alone.

Proposition: Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory.

1. Sola Scriptura professes the Bible alone to be the ultimate principle of authority for the Christian.¹

2. For any ultimate principle of authority to be true, it cannot explicitly disavow that it is the ultimate principle of authority.

   1. Our Lord affirms this principle. Despite His unfathomable humility, He still proclaims in John 14:6 that He “is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through Him.” Now, if He had not said this, He still could have been the Way, Truth, and LIfe. But Our Lord could not have said “I am not the Way, Truth, and Life,” though His power be omnipotent. He could not have lied about Himself, nor can scripture. And it certainly lends credibility to His supreme authority that He in fact claims to possess it. 

3. Negative Proofs from Scripture against Sola Scriptura

   1. Yet, scripture itself does not claim to be the exclusive or ultimate authority. There is no specific scripture in the Bible that claims that scripture alone is the ultimate authority for the Christian.

   2. Furthermore, there is no canon of scripture contained in scripture.

      1. For instance, St John the evangelist did not include at the end of the Book of Revelation a list of books that are to be included in scripture.

      2. Even if a table of contents this were contained within scripture, it would not entirely solve the problem of how we know that book to be scripture, but it would greatly simplify the problem. We would need some self-standing reason, from within the text itself, as to why one should accept that book. Perhaps it decended from Heaven on stone tablets, or was carved in marble by angels. Yet, no one claims this about any scriptural book.

      3. We do have scriptures quoted by Christ in the Gospels or by the Apostle Paul in his epistles, so we can by these means determine some of the authoritative books of scripture, but even if this could help us determine scripture, we see in fact that it cannot suffice. Many books in the OT are not cited in the NT. And moreover the book of Enoch, which was uniformally rejected from the canon, is quoted in the book of Jude, which was included in the canon, despite quoting from a non-canonical book. This instance alone excludes internal reference as a possibility for determining the canonical books.

      4. This means in sum, that scripture is not self-constituting, i.e. that what gets counted as scripture and what is not considered scripture must come from an authority source outside of scripture itself.

         1. This fact is proved that scripture was set as a canon at a few Church councils in the late 4th century. There were three centuries of Christianity without the Bible being set in a particular canon. This need for an external authority is also proved by the fact Martin Luther and the reformers decided, on their own fiat and reasoning, to remove books from the canon. Scripture itself didn’t (and cannot) vote books off the island, men did. Doing so constituted a performative contradiction with the reformation principle of authorty.

   3. A tertiary issue: there is no scripture that gives a specific hermeneutic of how to read scripture. E.g. Interpret Paul’s teaching in light of Our Lord’s sayings, or vice versa. If Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and St. Paul says He came to abolish it. And of course there are many ways to reconcile these sayings, but who gets higher authority? The Bible does not say, it does not tell us how to interpret apparent conflicts like this. Thus, again, there must be a principle of authority outside scripture that assists us in interpreting apparent conflicts like this correctly. Without such an authority, there is a tendency to constant reinterpretation and thus division.

   4. In summary, (1) Scripture doesn´t claim it is the exclusive, ultimate authority for the Christian. Nor can it be because scripture possesses no internal means of establishing (2) what counts as scripture and (3) how scripture is supposed to be understood. The first of these speaks against the doctrine. But either of these final two would suffice by themselves to prove that sola scriptura is false.

4. Positive Proofs from Scripture against Sola Scriptura—i.e. Scripture explicitly says that it is not the only authority. 

   1. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope in grace, Exhort your hearts and confirm you in every good work and word.” After being warned about being decieved the believers are told to hold fast to their traditions, either by oral tradition or by scripture. Thus scripture alone is not enough to hold onto, one must hold onto all that has been passed down, including by word of mouth. What is this oral tradition? Well, Jesus Christ taught for 40 days after his resurrection, we cannot know exactly what He taught in this time from scripture alone, but, for instance, the remarkable similiarity of ancient Liturgical rites (Ethiopian, Syro-Malabar, Maronite, Latin, Greek, etc) gives strong evidence that there was teaching in this time. Because of this, we can know with near certainty that there was important information outside of scripture that came from Jesus himself that the disciples were tasked with teaching and transmiting to the faithful to be passed on as Apostolic teaching.

   2. So it must be that the doctrine of scripture alone is self-refuting, sola scriptura is self-contradictory. Scripture says it is not the exclusive principle of authority, and thus cannot be. Ask a Protestant why they do not affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary as a test case, and they will tell you: “because it is not contained in scripture.” Then ask them, “well, if that is your reason for dismissing that traditional dogma, where is sola scriptura contained in scripture?” I have never heard a good answer to this question because the principle of sola scriptura is not contained in scripture. It’s mere prejudice at this point. Sola scripture itself should be rejected according to the same reason they readily rely on to they reject the perpetual virginity of Mary and other Doctrines taught by Sacred Tradition.

   3. I Tim 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Here Sacred Scripture claims it is the Church that is the foundation of truth, not scripture alone. Again, try this one out on your protestant peers. Ask: what is the pillar and ground of truth? Most evangelical Protestants, de facto, treat scripture like it is the pillar and ground of truth and will answer as such. “The Bible!” they exclaim. Yet, scripture itself defines the Church as being pillar and ground of truth. So once again, sola scripture doesn’t merely fail to support itself in scripture, but is contradicted by scripture. 

      1. But what about… I Tim 3:6 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” This is a great proof text for inerrancy, but it doesn’t support sola scriptura. Catholics do not deny inerrancy. And inerrancy doesn’t logically imply sole authority, sufficiency, self-composition, or infallible self-interpretation, it just doesn’t.

   4. “And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever: The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you….But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.” John 14: 16, 26 This scripture also refutes the idea that scripture interprets itself. Instead, the faithful are guided in truth by the Holy Ghost, which aids them and the Church itself in interpreting scripture. 

   5. Acts 15:8-11: “And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us: And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.” From scripture we can count this as the first Church council and it occurred before many books in scripture were even authored. Yet, Peter spoke with authority about that which lay outside of or beyond scripture, though not contradicting Holy Writ, just like today. So scripture itself makes reference to the place and means of authoritative judgments about itself and right dogma and practice, i.e. the decision of St Peter and the ecumenical councils.  

5. Thus from scripture alone we can determine negatively that (1) there must be an outside principle of authority to set the canon of scripture and to interpret scripture. Scripture tells us positively (2) that tradition and (3) the Church will constitute that principle of authority external to scripture and confirming the truth in scripture. Furthermore, Church tradition will be (4) inspired and guided by the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth. And (5) we see in scripture itself the Church operating along these lines and convening a council in Jerusalem headed by St Peter, inspired by the Holy Ghost, establishing Rules that go beyond scripture but help to preserve and protect scripture, even before the canon is determined in the late 4th Century. 

6. The Catholic Church has always professed claimed to be the authoritative interpreter of inerrant scripture! It claims this on the grounds that its councils and creeds and liturgies were inspired by the Holy Ghost. It has always claimed Tradition is in part composed of oral traditions and practices handed down by the Apostles that lay outside of scripture, yet do not contradict scripture as an inerrant rule of faith. 

7. Thus the Catholic Church not only claims to be the authoritative interpreter of scripture (something Scripture does not and would need to claim to be such an authority), but it’s claims about the composition and inspiration of it’s authority fit perfectly with what we find in scripture itself. Thus it could be true, what it teaches about itself and what scripture teaches. 

8. In contrast, the Protestant sects have proved by example that they are not pillars of truth nor grounds of truth, due to their lack of theological unity, rigor, and their inability to profess unchanging doctrine. Neither have they proved too shy to assert erring doctrines that go outside of scripture and against tradition. E.g. Consider the esoteric doctrine of Calvinism on double predestination, confirmed even at the Westminster Confession, that is nowhere substantiated in scripture. Or the unanimity in which all the landmark protestant confessions identify the Pope as the Anti-Christ. None of this is called for by or obviously deduced from scripture. Protestants always develop their own traditions as well, it’s just they are not Apostolic, are often unscriptural rather than extra-scriptural, or inspired by the Spirit of Truth.

1. "We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone." (Formula of Concord 1577)