Sola Scriptura
1. The Bible alone is all anyone needs for salvation. (This is the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura).
Which Bible? How do you know you have the right Bible? Are you sure your Bible contains only the true words that came down from the Apostles and Evangelists? Are you absolutely sure no words have been inserted or deleted deliberatey by man? Do you have an exact copy of the Holy Scriptures that are identical to the writings from Moses to St. John? If you don't then how can you talk about the Bible and the Bible alone theory? How do you know your Bible came from God? Do you prove it by the intrinsic merit of the writings? Or do you rely upon the religious quality of the Scriptures as sufficient evidence? The merit of the Bible and the inspiration it gives the reader is no guarantee that God is the writer, for we have other books, such as "The Following of Christ", which are much more inspiring than some parts of the Bible.
Sola Scriptura produces division and disunity, which contradicts Christ's prayer in John 17:21 that "they all may be one", and it ignores St. Paul's command for doctrinal unity in Ephesians 4:4-5 "One body and one Spirit... One Lord, one faith, one baptism". Protestant sects claim to be founded on the Bible, and the Bible alone, so why are there so many of them? It is because there are so many different interpretations as to what the Bible means. How can they all be right? They can't all be right if they all differ in doctrine and government. If they do not differ then why are they separated? Protestantism says "Let everyone read the Bible for himself and the Holy Ghost will guide him to the truth." If that is true then we must blame the Holy Ghost for the Babylon of religions that surround us, guiding one person to be a Baptist, another to be a Methodist, and so on until people give up religion entirely. Even the original "Reformers", Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli, labeled each other's teachings heretical. The Holy Ghost does not inspire someone using their own private interpretation. God is the God of Truth, not of confusion. There are an estimated 25,000 different Protestant denominations and sects, which translates into an average of one new Protestant denomination or sect developing every week since the Reformation. If the Holy Ghost were guiding every individual that read the Scriptures sincerely then those individuals would all reach the same conclusions, and it is obvious by all the different Protestant sects that they do not. Anyone who believes that Scripture is their only guide ends by believing in their own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means they end by believing in themselves. The Holy Ghost was guaranteed only to the Catholic Church and not to individuals in the teaching of truth.
Suppose the Constitution of the United States could be termed our Bible of Democracy. What do you suppose would happen if everyone used the right of private judgement to interpret the laws of our nation as they felt inspired by the Holy Ghost? What do you suppose would happen if we didn't have the Supreme Court to tell us what the Constitution is saying? Our nation would come to an end as a democracy if we tolerated in government the absurd principle of private judgement. Is it not also rational that we have a Supreme Authority to interpret the Bible? The Catholic Church, which gave the Bible to the world, alone has the authority to interpret the Bible.
We know the Catholic Bible is the Word of God because the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to the world says so. To believe in the Bible you must have some third party to come between you and God. Catholics have the Catholic Church as that third party to come between them and God to tell them whats what about the Bible.
2. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Revelation 22:18-19 prove that Scripture is all we need for salvation.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." It should be pointed out that the original text of 2 Timothy was written in Greek. There are 5 points in this verse that undermine Sola Scriptura:
First, the Greek word ophelimos, which is translated "profitable", means "useful", not "sufficient". Scripture is indeed "useful", but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching.
Second, the Greek word pasa, which is often translated "all", actually means "every". Therefore, the Greek text reads "Every Scripture is profitable...". According to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that would mean that every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, which even Protestants would find absurd.
Third, when this verse was written the only authenticated "Scripture" that was in existence was the Old Testament. If Sola Scriptura were true than that would mean that the Old Testament is all that is needed for salvation. Again, even Protestants would find that absurd.
Some Protestants might respond to this by saying that St. Paul was not discussing the canon of the Bible (the authoritative list of books which are included in the Bible), but rather the nature of Scripture. There is some validity to this argument, but the canon also has relevance here. Before we can talk about the nature of Scripture as being "inspired", it is important that we identify with certainty which books we mean when we say "Scripture". If that is not done then the wrong books may be labeled as "inspired".
Fourth, the Greek word artios, translated "perfect", makes it seem that Scripture is indeed all that is needed to make the man of God "perfect". The problem is, this verse does not say that Scripture alone is all that is needed. This verse indicates that Scripture works in conjunction with other things. Notice also that it is not just anyone who is made "perfect", but rather "the man of God", i.e., a minister of Christ, a clergyman. The fact that someone is a clergyman presupposes that he has had training and teaching, outside of Scriptures, which prepared him for his office. The Scriptures are certainly included in the list of necessary items, but they are not the only item.
There is another problem, if one takes the word "perfect" to mean "the only necessary thing" then it results in a biblical contradiction. In James 1:4 we read that patience, not Scripture, makes one perfect: "And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing." So, if a Protestant agrees that patience is not the only thing a Christian needs to be perfect, then to be consistent he or she must also acknowledge that the Scriptures are not the only thing a "man of God" needs in order to be perfect.
Fifth, the Greek word exaritizo in verse 17 is translated "furnished", or "fully equipped", or "thoroughly furnished", depending on the Bible version. Like "perfect" above, this word may be taken to imply that nothing else is needed for "the man of God." However, even though "the man of God" may be "thoroughly furnished", this does not in and of itself guarantee that he knows how to interpret correctly and apply any given Scripture passage. Someone may be "furnished" with the tools of a doctor, but that doesn't make that person a doctor. Even though someone may be "furnished" with Scripture, he must also be taught how to use them.
Finally, lets back up a couple of verses and take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in context. Starting in 2 Timothy 3:14 St. Paul writes "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus". Notice that the Scriptures St. Paul is referring to are those that Timothy had learned "from childhood". At the time St. Paul wrote this the only Scriptures Timothy could have known from his childhood are those of the Old Testament. So, if these verses "prove" Sola Scriptura it would mean that the Old Testament is sufficient in themselves, excluding the New Testament completely.
In Revelation 22:18 we read "For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book." There are three points that undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this verse:
First, the words of this verse are not referring to Sacred Tradition being "added" to Sacred Scripture. It is obvious that the "book" St. John is referring to is his own book, Revelation, not the entire Bible, because he says anyone who adds to "this book" will be cursed with the plagues "written in this book", which are the plagues he described earlier. To claim otherwise is to do violence to the text and to distort its plain meaning, especially since the Bible as we know it didn't exist when this passage was written. The argument that "this book" actually means the whole Bible is covered in the second item of the discussion of 2 Timothy above.
Some Protestants might argue that God knew in advance what the canon of the Bible would be and was therefore "sealing" it with this verse, but this involves reading a meaning into the text. Also, if such an assertion were true, how is it that the Christian knows with certainty that Revelation 22:18-19 is "sealing" the canon unless an infallible teaching authority, outside of the Bible, assures him that this is the correct interpretation of this verse? But if such an infallible authority exists then that makes the Sola Scriptura doctrine null and void.
Second, the same admonition not to add or subtract words is used in Deuteronomy 4:2: "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandment of the Lord your God which I command you." If the same logic is used here, then anything beyond the decrees of the Old Testament law, including the entire New Testament, would have to be considered non-canonical. Therefore, the prohibition in Revelation 22:18-19 cannot be interpreted to mean that Christians are forbidden to look to anything outside the Bible for guidance.
Third, if Revelation 22:18-19 actually refers to the entire Bible, then all Protestants are guilty, because they are using a Bible that Martin Luther removed seven whole books from, and parts of others, when he created his Protestant Bible during the Reformation (see the apologetics page about The Bible for more Bible information).
The Bible actually instructs us NOT to follow only the Bible. In Matthew 28:20 Jesus says "Observe all that I have commanded you." John 20:30 says that not everything Jesus taught is recorded in Scripture. So, how can someone be faithful to what Jesus said, and follow all His teachings, if they only follow those teachings that come from the Bible? Also, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Protestant Bible is missing 7 whole books that were included in the Bible, and therefore considered canonical, for the preceeding 1100 years. Martin Luther admitted that he removed them only by his own personal authority, so what of the teachings of Christ that are contained in those books?
Here's one more problem with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura: the canon of the Bible wasn't finalized until 397 AD, roughly 364 years after Christ's Resurrection, and the printing press, which allowed the Bible to be widely distributed to believers, wasn't invented until 1100 years after that. Who, or what, served as the final, infallible Christian authority during that time? Christ promised in Matthew 28:20 that "...I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world", and in John 14:18 Jesus said "I will not leave your orphans". So who was "in charge" during that 1500 year period before we had widespread access the Sacred Scriptures?
Some might say the faith "coasted" during this time, but that doesn't make sense considering the history of the time. During the first centuries of Christianity the persecution of Christians had already begun, believers were being martyred, and the new Faith was struggling to grow. False teachers had also already appeared (Galations 1:6-9). So how did the early Christians deal with doctrinal questions without a Bible to guide them? How did Jesus keep His promise to be with them always?
Protestants answer this with two possibilities: 1 - the Apostles were the final authority, temporarily, while the New Testament was being written, and/or 2 - the Holy Spirit directly guided the Church before the New Testament was completed.
There is no doubt Christ gave the Apostles His authority, but, nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that this authority would cease with the death of the last Apostle. Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say that on the death of the last Apostle the written form of God's Word will become the final authority. It is clear from the Bible that the Apostles chose successors who possessed the same Apostolic authority as the Apostles themselves. See for example the election of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot in Acts 1:15-26, and St. Paul's passing on his Apostolic authority to Timothy and Titus in 2 Timothy 1:6 and Titus 1:5.
The second possibility is extra-Biblical. There is ample evidence in the Bible of the Holy Spirit's presence among the believers, guiding them to "all truth", but nowhere in the Bible is there even a hint that the Holy Spirit would cease working in Christ's Church after the Scriptures were written. This presents a problem for Sola Scriptura believers: since the Bible doesn't say the Holy Spirit would stop working in the Church when the Scriptures were written, one would have to assume that He is STILL working in the Church, and He is. The Holy Spirit is still protecting the visible head of Christ's Church, the Pope, not letting him or the teaching authority of the Church (the Magisterium) lapse into error. Christ gave the Holy Spirit to His Church, and that same Spirit is still present in the Church, teaching It all truth (John 16:13), and safeguarding Its doctrinal integrity.
3. God hasn't revealed anything outside of Scripture that is necessary for our salvation.
Not true. All Christians would agree that it is necessary to know which books belong in the canon of Scripture, yet that information is not found anywhere in Scripture. None of the authors of the books in the New Testament, other than John in the book of Revelation, even claim to be writing under Divine inspiration. Therefore, contrary to Sola Scriptura, it is necessary to look outside Scriptures to determine how the canon of the Bible was determined. The canon of Scripture, which is so necessary for our salvation, was defined by the Catholic Church in regional councils in Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397. Before this there was no agreed on canon, so Christians who accept the canon of Scripture accept an infallible decision made by the Catholic Church. The decision on what books belong in the Bible has to be infallible, or believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bible, which would corrupt Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an infallible authority, that proves the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false.
Tradition also is necessary for us to know how to properly interpret Scripture. Suppose 100 years from now someone found a scrap of paper with the words "I never said you stole money" on it, how would they interpret that? There are 5 readily apparent ways to interpret it just using the words themselves:
The writer of that sentence might have meant "I never said you stole money", implying someone else said it.
Or perhaps he meant "I never said you stole money." He thought it, he suspected it, but he never said it.
Or maybe "I never said you stole money." He said your neighbor stole it.
Or, "I never said you stole money." He means that you lost it, or squandered it, or did something else with it that he didn't approve of, but you didn't steal it.
Or, "I never said you stole money." Maybe you stole his horse, or shoes, or something else, but not his money.
This shows how easy it is to derive several legitimate but very different meanings from this short, six word sentence. Think how easily the Bible can be misinterpreted having been written 2000 years ago in a culture very different from our own. We can't just assume we have the correct understanding of Scripture. We need an authority to guide us, and the only true authority on the Bible is the Catholic Church.
If all Protestant Christians accept the Catholic Church's decision on what Scriptures are inspired, why don't they accept her other teachings as well?
It needs to also be pointed out that the Bible calls the Church the "Pillar and ground of the Truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15, not the Bible itself. This verse makes it clear that Christ established an authoritative teaching Church. If Scripture alone were sufficient, why would Christ feel the need to establish a teaching Church?
Not only did Christ establish a teaching Church, He also told us to submit to the authority of that Church. In Matthew 18:15-18 Christ instructs His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. Notice that Christ identifies the Church, not Scripture, as the final authority to be appealed to. In Matthew 18:17 Christ himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican".
There are instances in the Bible where Christ appeals to Scripture, but in these cases he was teaching the Scriptures, not allowing the Scriptures to teach themselves. Consider when Christ would respond to the Scribes and Pharisees by using Scripture when they tried to trap Him by using Scripture. In these cases Christ would demonstrate how the Scribes and Pharisees had wrong interpretations and He corrects them by properly interpreting Scripture. When Christ refers His hearers to Scriptures He also provides His infallible interpretation of them, which demonstrates that the Scriptures do not interpret themselves.
4. A decision of the Catholic Church wasn't necessary to determine the canon of the Bible, the books of the Bible witness to themselves that they are inspired, they are self-authenticating.
Really? Let's examine a little history:
History proves that several books of the New Testament (James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation) were disputed in terms of their status as canonical for quite some time. They were accepted in some places, rejected in others. Even the Early Church Fathers St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine had drawn up lists of New Testament books which were generally accepted as inspired in their times, but none of these lists correspond exactly th the New Testament canon that was eventually identified by the Catholic Church. If these books were "self-authenticating" why was there so much uncertainty on them? Why did it take 400 years for the canon of the Bible to be identified if all the books are so readily discernible?
Now lets consider the following:
Some books of the Bible (St. Matthew's Gospel, for instance) do not identify their own authors. This leaves us with only two possibilities for determining who wrote them: 1 - Tradition, and 2 - Biblical scholarship, both of which are extra-Biblical and would therefore be condemned by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Some Protestants would say that it isn't necessary to know who wrote a particular book, one's salvation doesn't depend on the author but on the content. This view is problematic. An authentic Gospel is God's Word and is the means by which a person comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, but if a person has no way of knowing for certain that a particular book of the Bible is Apostolic in origin (by self-identification of the author), and therefore genuine, how do they know it is truly the Word of God? And even if a particular book does claim to be written by an Apostle, how do we know for certain that it really was?
Another problem with the "self-authenticating" theory is we do not possess a single original manuscript of any book of the Bible. We have thousands of copies, or more likely copies of copies, of the originals, but not the originals. The original manuscripts were inspired, the copies are not. Without the originals we cannot know with certainty that we possess the real, whole, and entire Bible.
Protestants may claim that not having the originals is immaterial, that God preserved the Bible by safeguarding its duplication. There are two problems with this claim. First - this claim is not written in Scripture itself, therefore, according to Sola Scriptura, it can't be believed. The second problem is that if Protestants maintain that God safeguarded His written Word, then they should also maintain that He safeguarded His oral Word (Sacred Tradition) as well. Remember 2 Thessalonians 2:14(15) and the twofold form of God's one revelation. The preaching of the Gospel began as oral tradition (Luke 1:1-4 and Romans 10:17), it wasn't until later that some of the oral traditions were written down, and even later still that these writings were declared to be inspired and authoritative, thus becoming Sacred Scripture.
5. The Bible itself says that it is inspired, in 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable...").
First - this verse is simply making at statement, it does not list those Scriptures which are inspired. All Scripture that is inspired of God is profitable, but how do we know a particular book is inspired, and therefore part of Sacred Scripture?
Second - a claim to inspiration is not a guarantee of inspiration. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science sect, claims her writings are inspired. The founder of the Mormon sect, Joseph Smith, claims his writings are inspired. I could claim this paper on Sola Scriptura is inspired, but how many Protestants would believe that? Writings can claim anything. How do we know 2 Timothy 3:16 is itself inspired of God? Something more than a mere claim is needed for us to know with certainty that a writing is genuinely inspired. That guarantee of inspiration must come from outside that writing. The guarantee that the Bible is inspired must come from a source outside the Bible, but this outside authentication is excluded by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
6. Jesus condemned tradition in Mark 1:8.
In Mark 1:8 Jesus is condemning human traditions, not Sacred Traditions. If this verse were meant to include ALL tradition then the Bible would contradict itself.
Careful reading of the Bible will show that the Bible actually tells us to embrace Sacred Tradition. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Christians are commanded to "...stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." Can this be any more clear? The phrase "...whether by word" clearly indicates oral Tradition. 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 says "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you". These verses shows three significant facts: 1 - it shows the existence of living traditions within the teachings of the Apostles, 2 - it says without doubt that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and 3 - it states very clearly that these traditions were both written and oral.
In 2 Timothy 1:13 St. Paul writes "What you have heard from me, keep as a pattern of a sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus." Later, in 2 Timothy 2:1-2 St. Paul adds "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."
Given these clear texts, by what authority do Protestants defy Sacred Scripture by rejecting Sacred Tradition?
7. In 2 Timothy 2:15 St. Paul says to "rightly divide the word of truth". "Word of truth" is another name for the Bible.
The phrase "word of truth" also extends to oral tradition. Check Ephesians 1:13 "In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth...", and Colossians 1:5 "For the hope that is laid up for you in heaven, which you have heard in the word of the truth of the gospel."
8. The writings of St. Basil, St. Athanasius, and St. Cyril, three of the Fathers of the Church, all clearly prove the early Christians believed in Sola Scriptura.
Sadly, many Protestant apologists are rather fond of the "cut and paste" method of quoting sources, such as Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers, to "prove" their beliefs, as is the case here. This is understandable in a twisted way (pun intended), because they have to do this to support their views, those writings taken in context would not only NOT support Protestant views, they would contradict them. The writings of the Fathers, as well as Scripture and any source, have to be taken in context to get their true meaning.
The text from St. Basil which some Protestants say "proves" the early Christians believed in Sola Scriptura is as follows:
"Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth" (Epistle ad Eustathiu).
Upon reading this text in context you will find that St. Basil held Sacred Scripture high as the written standard of truth in the Catholic Church, but that he was in NO WAY denying the authority of Sacred Tradition.
Consider these two examples which clearly show St. Basils true (and very Catholic) feelings on tradition:
"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force." (On the Holy Spirit, 66)
"In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form with the Spirit has no written authority, we maintain that if there is not another instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received (as authoritative). But if the great number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority (i.e., of Scripture), then, in company with many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide by the unwritten traditions. 'I praise you", it is said, "that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I handed them on to you," (1 Corinthians 11:1) and, "Hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us (under consideration), which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivered it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time." (On the Holy Spirit, 71)
The texts from St. Athanasius that Protestants say "proves" Sola Scriptura are:
"The holy and inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth" (Contra Gentiles, 1:3), and "These books (of canonical Scripture) are the fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel. Let no man add to these or take away from them." (39th Festal Letter, 6)
St. Athanasius was a Bishop, and if his 39th Festal Letter is read IN CONTEXT one will find that he was providing liturgical guidelines for the priests and deacons in his diocese regarding what was permitted to be read at Mass. During that time non-canonical Christian writings were sometimes being read during Mass along with the New Testament Gospels and epistles, and St. Athanasius was ending that practice. This in no way, shape, or form promotes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Contra Gentiles means "against the heathen". The one short verse quoted above is a very small part of a rather lengthy letter whose purpose is to vindicate Christian doctrine, not to promote Sacred Scripture as the sole rule of faith. Now consider the following quotes from St. Athanasius:
"The confession (that is, the formal teachings) arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church" (Ad Afros, 1). The Nicea he was speaking about was the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325.
"The very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone depart from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian" (Ad Serapion, 1:28). Strong words. How do Protestants get around this very clear statement from St. Athanasius?
These clearly show that St. Athanasius firmly believed in the teaching authority of the Church, and was therefore NOT a believer of Sola Scriptura.
The "proof" of Sola Scriptura from St. Cyril of Jerusalem is:
In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not the least part may be handed on without Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation which we believe in not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures" (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17).
This quote proves to be quite problematic, for Protestants. The problem is this: in Catechetical Lectures, where the above quote came from, we also find St. Cyril's vigorous teachings on the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church (18:23), the Mass as a Sacrifice (23:6-8), the concept of purgatory and the efficacy of expiatory prayers for the dead (23:10), the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (19:7, 21:3, 22:1-9), the theology of the sacraments (1:3), holy orders (23:2), the intercession of the saints (23:9), the importance of frequent Communion (23:23), and baptismal regeneration (1:1-3, 3:10-12, 21:3-4), all Catholic doctrines which Protestants reject as "un-biblical". If Protestants accept the above quote as "proof" of Sola Scriptura then they also have to admit that St. Cyril believed that he found those Catholic doctrines in the Bible. So, how do Protestants justify the fact that they reject them? The only "out" for them is to conclude that St. Cyril was badly mistaken in his exegesis of Scripture, but then they would have to admit that St. Cyril is not a trustworthy Bible interpreter, so none of his work can be used to support Sola Scriptura.
The writings of the Early Church Fathers are clear that the idea of Sola Scriptura did not exist in the early Church. If you read all the writings of the Early Church Fathers, in context, you will find that they ALL believed everything the Catholic Church still believes, and NOTHING Protestant churches believe.
9. Christ chose poor fishermen for His Apostles, not learned men. We can understand the Scriptures as well as they did.
Christ trained His Apostles personally, and infused into their minds an exact knowledge of His doctrine. Luke 24:45 says "He then opened their minds to understand the Scriptures," We cannot claim to have received a similiar revelation. We cannot rank ourselves with them.
Also, remember that the Pharisees were learned men, who thought they understood Scripture, but they still failed to see that Jesus was God's Son, and actually used Scripture against Him, much the same way Protestants try to use Scripture against the Catholic Church today.
Let's not forget the warning of St. Peter in 2 Peter 3:16: "There are some things in them (i.e. the writings of St. Paul) hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
Here the word "ignorant" does not mean stupid or slow, it means "those who are untrained". In this one verse St. Peter reveals to us three very important facts about the Bible and its interpretation: First - the Bible contains verses which are not readily clear or understandable, which shows the need for an authoritative and infallible teacher, second - it is not only possible that people can distort the meaning of Scripture, but that it was, in fact, being done from the very earliest days of the Church, and third - distorting the meaning of Scripture can result in one's "destruction".
That fact that the Bible is not sufficient of itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine and needs an authority to instruct us properly in what it says is shown again in Acts 8:26-40. This is the story of the Ethiopian eunuch and St. Philip, a deacon. The eunuch is reading from the prophet Isaias, and St. Philip is lead to him by the Holy Spirit. St. Philip then asks him if he understands what he has just read, to which the eunuch replies "And how can I, unless some man show me?". St. Philip was not an Apostle, but he was someone commissioned by them (Acts 6:6) and who preached the Gospel with authority (Acts 8:4-8), therefore his preaching would reflect legitimate Apostolic teaching. If Scripture were sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of what he was reading.
Consider also Luke 24:27. While on the road to Emmaus Jesus "explained to them (the two disciples) in all the Scriptures, the things that were concerning Him." If the Scriptures were sufficient of themselves why did Jesus have to explain it to them?
Lastly, we have the warning of St. Peter in 2 Peter 1:20, which says "no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." Notice this verse is preceded by a section on the Apostolic witness (verses 12-18) and followed by a section on false teachers (chapter 2, verses 1-10). Clearly St. Peter is telling us the pivotal point between genuine Apostolic teaching and false prophets and false teaching is private interpretation. When we start believing in private interpretation of the Scriptures we turn from authentic teaching to erroneous teaching, and that will lead to our destruction.
10. What special qualifications does the Catholic Church have to interpret the Scriptures?
1. The New Testament was written by members of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church existed before even a line of the New Testament was written, Protestantism started many centuries later. The Gospels are really the "family papers" of the Catholic Church, and she alone, possessing the family traditions, can interpret what those family papers really mean. Patrick Madrid makes this point very well in his book "Where is that in the Bible" with the following example:
Let's say someone wrote these words 100 years ago:
I never said you stole money.
Anyone you asked would say they understood the meaning of that short, six word sentence. But do they? Do they really understand what meaning the writer intended 100 years ago?
The writer of that sentence might have meant "I never said you stole money", implying someone else said it.
Or perhaps he meant "I never said you stole money." He thought it, he suspected it, but he never said it.
Or maybe "I never said you stole money." He said your neighbor stole it.
Or, "I never said you stole money." He means that you lost it, or squandered it, or did something else with it that he didn't approve of, but you didn't steal it.
Or, "I never said you stole money." Maybe you stole his horse, or shoes, not his money.
This shows how easy it is to derive several legitimate but very different meanings from this short, six word sentence. Think how easily the Bible can be misinterpreted, having been written 1500 years before the beginning of Protestantism. We can't just assume we have the correct understanding of Scripture. We need an authority to guide us, and the only true authority on the Bible is the Catholic Church.
2. The Catholic Church carefully and jealously preserved the Bible through the ages, so the Protestants would have no Gospel were it not for the Catholic Church. Read the words of Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism:
We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics, (for example) that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it." (Commentary on John, chapter 16).
3. The Catholic Church has been much more faithful to Scripture than any Protestant Church. while many Protestant leaders are prepared to sacrifice the Bible in order to appear more scientific and "politically correct", the Catholic Church consistently demands that every letter of God's Word must be accepted in the original sense intended by God.
4. The Protestant Churches owe their separate existences to the fact that each denies that the others really know what Scripture means, thus disproving the theory of Sola Scriptura.
5. The Catholic Church was established by Christ as the rule of faith, and He declared that a man is to be regarded as a heathen if he will not hear the Church, therefore, the Catholic Church is the only qualified interpreter of Scripture.
Protestants ignore the fact that the Catholic Church produced the Bible, the Bible did not produce the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church existed for nearly 400 years before the Bible. Since the Church produced the Scriptures, it is quite Biblical, reasonable, and logical to say that the Church alone has the authority to interpret them properly.
Jesus gave primacy to the teaching authority of His Church: in Matthew 28:20 Christ commissions His Apostles to go and teach in His name, in Mark 15:16 the Apostles are commanded to go and preach to all the world, and in Luke 10:16 we see that whoever hears the seventy-two hears Christ. Nowhere did Christ tell His Apostles to evangelize the world by writing.
11. Here are three more reasons to reject Sola Scriptura:
1. As noted previously, there are thousands of Biblical manuscripts in existence. These manuscripts contains thousands of variations in the texts. Raymond F. Collins, author of "Introduction to the New Testament", estimates there are over 200,00 such variations. Most of those variations deal with minor concerns such as spelling, word order, and such, but there are also more serious variations, such as 1 - research has shown that scribes sometimes modified Biblical texts to harmonize passages, to accommodate them to historical fact, and to establish doctrinal correctness. 2 - There are portions of verses (more than just a single word) for which there are several different manuscript readings, John 7:39, Acts 6:8, Colossians 2:2, and 1 Thessalonians 3:2 are just a few examples. There are even more serious differences: There are four possible endings for the Gospel of St. Mark, and there is evidence for alternate readings is some verses of other books, such as John 1:18 and Acts 20:28. These variations leave the Protestant with a problem: How can a Protestant profess to base his/her beliefs solely on the Bible when he/she cannot determine with certainty the textual authenticity of their Bible?
A related problem lies with Bible translators. They, as human beings, are not completely objective and impartial, and some may be likely to render a given passage in a manner that corresponds more closely with their particular belief system than with another. For example, in some Protestant Bibles the Greek word paradoseis is translated "teachings" or "customs" rather than "traditions", since Protestants deny the existance of Sacred Tradition. Another example is in the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation, in which the "translators" rendered key passages in a way that suits their erroneous doctrines. Just two examples: John 1:1 reads "...and the Word was a god", rather than "...and the Word was God", because Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ. In Matthew 26:26 The Witnesses Bible reads "...this means my body" instead of "This is my body" because the Witnesses (like Protestants) deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Given all these variations how does a Protestant know which translations are unsuited for teaching doctrine? Biblical scholarship can't be used because Jehovah's Witnesses cite sources of Biblical scholarship to support their translations. Without an infallible authority which speaks on behalf of Christ to guide them the issue becomes a game of pitting one source of scholarship (i.e. one human authority) against another.
2. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not Apostolic. It did not exist until John Wycliffe created it in the 14th century, and Martin Luther expanded and spread it in the 16th century. As proven above, the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura, and it was unheard of until the 14th century.
3. Martin Luther suffered from severe emotional problems. He himself wrote "My spirit was completely broken and I was always in a state of melancholy, for, do what I would, my 'righteousness' and my 'good works' brought me no help or consolation". He admitted that he was obsessed with his own sinfulness and his inability to resist temptation. We must consider Luther's psychological and emotional frame of mind when considering the origin of his doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Even a brief examination will show that Luther developed this doctrine, not because he felt it was theologicaly justified, but out of his need to be free from the guilt feelings, despair, and temptation that tortured him.
12. In closing, consider this: Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura are actually following tradition themselves. Since Scripture itself doesn't say that it is all that is needed for salvation Protestants are following a man made tradition that has been handed down since the Reformation.
SOURCES
Jerusalem Bible
Catholic Dictionary
"Bible Quizzes to a Street Preacher", by TAN Books and Publishing, Inc.
The Holy Bible as translated from the Latin Vulgate
"Where is that in the Bible?", by Patrick Madrid
"Answer me this", by Patrick Madrid
"The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Church", by John Salza
"Nuts & Bolts, A Practical, How-To Guide For Explaining and Defending the Catholic Faith", by Tim Staples
"Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura", by Joel Peters
"Which Came First, the Bible or the Church?", by Matthew Arnold (distributed on CD by Lighthouse Catholic Media)