Sola Scriptura: Is there such a thing?

Charles Miller | 09/17/2014

Some people claim to believe in the idea of Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone. This is a belief that states that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, and nothing else can be considered in discussion, other than the Bible and the words contained inside it. Can this really be believed though? One of the normal responses for rejection of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible never says that the Bible is the ONLY source of Truth, but that the Church was called the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. It does say that all Scripture is good for teaching (2 Timothy 3:16), but it never claims that it’s the ONLY thing. I would ask something else though. Can the people that claim such a belief actually be able to believe that? I don’t believe that they can.

The Bible is complex work of literature. It was written over time by many different authors, in many different written styles, and to different audiences with different goals in mind. I have never met anyone in my life that has claimed that the Bible can only be interpreted in one way, and that there is no possible way anyone could interpret it differently at all. This claim would be completely contrary to what all of us already know in the world today. People read the Bible and come to completely different conclusions on things. That is the reason that there are so many churches out there that have so many varying beliefs on issues that can be crucial to our very Salvation. If the Bible is ALL that is needed, if it contains ALL that is required for people to know the Will of God, then why are there so many different contrary interpretations?

The first line of defense that I have witnessed for this is a claim that one has to read the Bible and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance. Well that sounds great. What better way to get to the true meaning than ask God Himself, right? The problem is that, other than making a blanket assumption that anyone that has understood something differently must not have prayed and read Scripture, this simple statement completely voids the idea behind Sola Scriptura. If you have to ask for a source outside the Bible, then it can no longer be considered “Scripture Alone.” Certainly the Bible contains all of the words really needed to obtain Salvation, but if you cannot interpret them properly to obtain that Salvation, than can you really say it is Sola Scriptura? It also begs the same question asked earlier; if the Holy Spirit guides all of us to the proper interpretation, than why are there so many different, and sometimes completely opposite and contrary beliefs? I think this serves as a proof that Sola Scriptura isn’t even possible; much less that it is a teaching of Christ. If it were, then we would not have these problems of interpretation today as everyone would be given the correct interpretations when they prayed on them. This doesn’t seem to be the case though since so many are in disagreement.

I have heard people explain that not everyone listens to the Spirit properly, but if they did, if they really knew God, then they would receive the correct teachings from the Bible. Now this is what we call a circular argument. There is no end to it, or reasoning behind it that won’t lead right back to the beginning. When they are asked how YOU know that YOU are the one that received the proper interpretation, then it will be another reference that they prayed and listened to God for the response. When given examples of other people that have claimed the same they will say that they were lead astray by Satan, or that they let their own human pride and thinking mess up the message instead of just relying on God. This leads right back to the beginning again though, because how do YOU know for a fact that YOU are the one that wasn’t lead astray or let your pride and thinking get in the way? What I have seen this lead to in the end of almost every conversation is everyone saying the equivalent of well we all believe what we believe and no one will know for sure until we die. This is akin to moral relativism because it’s saying well we’ll have to agree to disagree, but we’re all going to be okay.

When looking at this we do have to rely on the Bible for evidence for or against though, since we are starting with a stance that only accepts what the Bible says as a source. The idea of someone reading the Scriptures and learning by themselves was discussed in the Bible. In Acts 8:26-31, we see a man trying this. He was not just granted instant infallible interpretation by the Spirit though. God sent someone with Authority to teach him. For context this reads:

“ ²⁶But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert road. ²⁷And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can′dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship ²⁸and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. ²⁹And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” ³⁰So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” ³¹And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.”

This was in reference to him reading over the book of Isaiah. Now if God’s Will was the Bible being the only thing needed, then why did an Apostle have to be sent to teach him the true meaning of it all? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit simply grant the full understanding as some people claim today? It is an Old Testament (OT) book, but the OT is still a part of the Bible today, and the New Testament (NT)wasn’t yet in existence when this occurred. Did this new teaching not kick in until the NT was complete and Canonized? If that were the case, then were does it claim that in the Bible itself? Where is this in the documented teachings of the Early Church?

Another section of the Bible discusses the actual interpretation of the Scriptures. This is found in 2 Peter 1:20-21 where it states:

”²⁰First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, ²¹because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Here we see a direct call from the Bible itself not to interpret the Bible from our own understanding, but if the Bible were all that were needed to teach us, then wouldn’t our own understanding be enough to lead us to the correct interpretation that God wants us to have? This will, of course, be answered with more claims that the Holy Spirit will guide us if we just ask, but millions of Christians have done just that, and millions of them come up with different meanings to different verses. Do we think that God didn’t foresee that happening and put something in place to help stop it?

I think that it’s easy to let our own pride get in our way. It’s simple to say that we don’t need others to understand for us, and that no one was chosen before us by God to help us to understand and teach. I would ask that, with the verses from Acts 8 and 2 Peter 1:20 in mind, doesn’t it seem likely that Christ meant for the correct interpretation to be taught by the Church that is the foundation of the Truth as it is called in 1 Timothy 3:15?

^“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

Wouldn’t it make the most sense that the Church being discussed here to protect that interpretation, and be that foundation of the Truth for people to look to, would be the one founded by Christ and led by people of Authority to teach like Paul did to the man on the road to Jerusalem? Which Church is this? I would say with certainty that it is the Church that was founded on Peter by Christ Himself, and guaranteed that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), the only Christian Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity, and one of the only Churches that can trace their roots directly back to the Apostles and Christ Himself. It is the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that has been teaching the Apostolic interpretation of the Scriptures, known as the Apostolic Tradition of the Church, as passed down through the successors of the Apostles, and protected by the Holy Spirit as promised by God, from the time of Christ to the Church today. It is not the hand of man that has held the Church together for over 2000 years through persecution after persecution, but the guidance and protection of God.

As with all of the Church teachings, we can also look to the Early Church Fathers to see this in action throughout history, starting from the time of Christ and moving forward. There are examples from many early authors that may be read that show the belief of Apostolic Succession, and the importance of it for the Church and the correct teachings of Christ. I do not have room to quote all of them here, but will instead share a few and list a few more for further reading.

Saint Irenaeus - Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2) (170-189 AD)

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

Saint Clement of Alexandria (Titus Flavius Clemens) From The Stromata, or Miscellanies – Book I, Chapter I, Paragraph 13 (198 – 203 AD)

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escape the blessed tradition.”

Other early Christian writings mention the tradition as well, and when we pool these together we get the idea that it was the Tradition of the Church, lead by the successors of the Apostles themselves, known as Bishops, that was placed on earth, and guided by the Holy Spirit, to guard the teachings of Christ and teach the proper interpretations of the Bible itself. Some of these authors include:

Papias

Eusebius of Caesarea

Origen

Cyprian of Carthage

Basil the Great

Epiphanius of Salamis

More of the writings of the Early Church Fathers can be found in the link below for any who are nterested in more reading into what the earliest Christians believed and taught.

New Advent