Definition
Sola Scriptura does not necessarily mean that the Bible is the only source of Christian instruction. But what it does affirm is that tradition is inherently secondary to scripture, because only scripture is infallible. The opposing claim – made by the Apostolic Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) – is that the right to infallibly doctrinally define scripture belongs principally to the council of Bishops, who are the rightful successors to the Apostles, and are distinguished by an unbroken line tracing back to the original twelve. They (purportedly) carry on the universal ecclesial authority described in the book of Acts.
The New Covenant
The Mosaic religion begins with the reception of the Ten Commandments. God’s next act of business is to spend 15 chapters of Exodus and 16 chapters of Leviticus describing liturgical statutes. Then, chapters 17-27 focus on Levitical conduct. God makes it clear that if the people “keep [His] word,” then “[He] will be their God” (Leviticus 26:3-13).
There are 27,000 contiguous words describing liturgy between Exodus and Leviticus. There are 223 words in 1 Corinthians 11:23-32, the only explicit description of Apostolic liturgical practice in scripture. We don’t even have that passage because Paul wanted to write it down to pass on to future generations. We have it because he had to scold the Corinthians for messing it up.
God’s command was to keep the 613 Mosaic statutes. Christ’s command is 18 words. “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another just as I have loved you” (John 13:34).
Modern artists have managed to make replicas of Solomon’s temple due to the incredible detail recorded in 3 Kings. Meanwhile, Acts doesn’t have a single description of a Christian church.
The Apostles were aware their writings held the same authority as scripture. In 2 Peter 3:15-17, Peter refers to Paul’s epistles as scripture. But they were not interested in codifying a robust library for future followers. To the contrary, they purposely avoided creating a robust scriptural deposit. Paul said, “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:3-8), referencing Jeremiah’s prophecy that the new covenant would not be scriptural (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Consequently, the Apostles spent a lot more time preaching than writing things down (1 Cor 11:34, 1 Thess 5:1-2, 2 Thess 2:5, 2 John 12).
There are almost no “ground rules” anywhere in the New Testament. Every epistle is ad-hoc, addresses specific concerns and situations, and carries an expectation that the audience was aware of pre-existing norms and practices (I Cor 2:1-2 and 15:1-3, Gal 1:8, 1 Thess. 2:13, Rom 10:14 and 15:20-22, Eph 1:13, Jude 3). There are almost no verses about the roles of the elders, deacons, and presbyters. We are never told their exact qualifications, what they do, nor given any details on how they do it.
Nowhere does the Bible say “Jesus, the coequal Son, proceeds from the Father.” One could easily surmise from the words of scripture – with many Christians of up to the Council of Nicaea – that Christ is a creature, though the “firstborn of all creatures,” and called “God” analogically, signifying a profound created participation (1 Col. 1:15). One could easily make the case that that is actually far more reasonable than claiming God somehow became a man. Nowhere does scripture say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Nowhere does scripture say Christ has a human and divine nature or a human and divine will.
Further – perhaps most significantly – the Bible does not contain the canon of scripture. Historical writings either are or are not inspired by the Holy Spirit; the Bible itself gives no direction as to which books these are. Although Peter refers to Paul’s epistles as scripture, that point depends on Peter’s epistle being authentic scripture.
For 300 years after the Apostles had died, the Christian Church thrived without a canon of scripture. Even then, it would be more than a thousand years before any meaningful number of people in Europe could read. So for 1500 years, the Church hierarchy interpreted and safeguarded scripture and tradition and handled ecclesial governance, particularly through Ecumenical councils.
The Interpretation Paradox
Which is the higher authority – the law, or the judge applying the law? In ruling on the law, the judge is bound to serve the law, and in this sense the law is the higher authority. But, the judge, in interpreting the law, determines the meaning of the law in the context of the situation, considering not only the letter of the law, but the mind of the legislator and the legal precedent. We can see the question is paradoxical. Without the law, the judge has nothing to rule on; but without the judge, the law is just words on a page.
Now, consider an unjust or untrained judge: they may not be sufficiently familiar with the letter of the law to rule on it; or they may not truly know the mind of the legislator; or they may bear the wrong precedent in mind. If the judge rules unjustly because of these imperfections, though the law may be just, the result will be unjust.
Let me ask another question: which is the higher authority – the Bible, or the Christian reading the Bible? In interpreting the Bible, the believer is bound to serve the Bible as the word of God, and in this sense the Bible is the higher authority. But the interpreter, in interpreting the Bible, determines the meaning of scripture in the context of their situation, considering not only the letter, but the mind of God and the Christian tradition. We can see this question is paradoxical. Without the Bible, the interpreter hasn’t the word of God; but without the interpreter, the Bible is just words on a page.
Now consider an unjust or untrained Christian: they may not be sufficiently familiar with the whole of the canon to judge one part; or they may not have sufficient wisdom to know the mind of God, the legislator; or they may be interpreting in the context of a bad tradition.
The Bible itself presents the problem of the “bad judge” as a threat to salvation. Throughout the Old Testament, there are constant condemnations of the error of pagan and Jew alike doing “what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25, Deut 12:8, Proverbs 3:5, 14:12, Psalm 12:1-4). The New Testament warns about “hearing what we want to hear and preaching what we want to preach” (Matt. 24:24, 2 Tim 4:3-4, 1 John 4:1, 2 Peter 2:1). Peter’s second epistle references misinterpretation of Paul’s epistles becoming an issue while he was still alive: “[Paul’s] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter has the same dire tone as the Old Testament. Misinterpreting scripture leads to doing what is right in your own eyes, and that leads to destruction.
Is there an answer to this issue? One may argue that the Bible is so clear that none could possibly deviate from it in good faith. But we’ve already established that the New Covenant is incredibly vague, and we’ve already shown Peter describing the Bible as vague enough to be misinterpreted in the Bible. So that can’t be true. Well, it could just be that the Holy Spirit grants every Christian the gift to judge scripture rightly. Jeremiah did say that all men would know God, “from the greatest to the least” (Jeremiah 31:31-34). But that cannot be so; again, scripture says believers can misinterpret the Bible, and empirical evidence makes this plainly obvious. After all, the Mormons, the Catholics, the Methodists, and the KKK cannot all be correct at the same time.
So what is the answer? Who would dare call themselves worthy of judging scripture? By what authority?
The Pillar of Truth
There is only one truth; there is no division in God. God came to give us the one truth, such that we would “no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming” (Ephesians 4:14). St. Paul says the Church is the means of protecting us from deceit and showing forth God’s wisdom (Ep. 3:10), calling her the very “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Again, there can only be one truth; there is no division in God. Christ says His Church will be one (John 17:20-21). Those within the Church ought to be “one in spirit and of one mind” (Philippians 2:1-2). We’ve already described the many ways men can be led astray by false doctrines; how does Christ protect His Church from error?
At the Last Supper, Christ promised the Apostles “the Spirit of truth” to “abide forever” and “teach [them] all things” (John 14:16-18). To know what a book means, you have to ask the author; so, Christ gave the Author of the Bible, the “Spirit of truth,” to the Apostles – forever! He likewise gave them authority over doctrine: Christ gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom of Heaven” and told him whatever he “binds on earth is bound in Heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19). As Christ chose the Apostles for successors, the Apostles chose their own: Paul describes laying hands on Timothy (2 Tim 1:6) specifically to make him a spiritual shepherd (1 Tim 4:14-16) and to appoint others as such (1 Tim 3, 2 Tim 2:2). The Council of Nicaea (325) confirms that Bishops choose their successors (Can. 4) by laying on of hands (Can. 19).
In 107 AD, hardly a few years after the death of his master (St. John the Apostle), St. Ignatius of Antioch summarized these points quite pithily: “Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the [universal] Church.” Contrary to being a later invention, Apostolic succession is an Apostolic tradition with scriptural roots and ecumenical ratification.
This unbroken chain of Apostolic succession still exists today in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Do we have to obey these “new” Apostles? While the Old Law was active, Christ told His disciples to obey the Pharisees – the evil men who plotted to kill Him – “for they sit on the chair of Moses” (Matthew 23:1-3). Think about that. The dignity of the chair of Moses was so great that Christ commanded HIS followers to obey His future murderers. In the Old Testament, He immediately damned a group who rejected Moses’ authority and went into schism (Numbers 16). He instituted the death penalty for anyone who disobeyed the Levitical magistrates (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). Scripture makes it clear that a divinely instituted office maintains its authority, regardless of who occupies it. If this was the case for the Pharisees, how much more so for the Apostolic offices of the everlasting covenant?
Will you argue that the New Covenant demands a higher standard for obedience than the Old? Let us think, then, in respect of those Apostolic offices of the everlasting covenant. Within hours of their consecration, one Bishop hanged himself, nine fled, and the first Pope denied Christ three times. Did St. John, the sole faithful Apostle, rebuke them and start his own Church in response? Of course not. So, if the unimaginable scandal of abandoning God in His hour of need was not enough to separate the ecclesial body, what would be? Who, upon looking at the example of St. John, would dare to suggest some modern scandal would justify rejecting the authority of the Church?
Circularity?
Sometimes, a Protestant will accuse the position above of circularity. That is, it seems to be justifying the authenticity of the Bible with the authenticity of the Church, but then turning around and justifying the authenticity of the Church with the authenticity of the Bible. But this is not necessarily the case. For example: it is not circular for me to suggest that Jesus Christ, based on the Gospels read as historical texts, makes the only compelling claim to divinity in human history, and that the basic narrative of those texts is that He was born of a virgin, died, rose from the dead, and established a Church through His twelve Apostles. One can easily identify that this Church involves Apostolic succession, being that the entire Christian Church professed and practiced it for 1,500 years. From there, one can validate scripture on Church authority.
But does this then mean Apostolic succession depends on personal interpretation? That is, that there is no real distinction between believing in Apostolic succession and sola scriptura, since both depend on one’s own judgment? By no means. Though these admit of the same category, they are absolutely distinct. Factually identifying that the universal Christian Church practiced Apostolic succession for 1,500 years is as difficult as one google search. Meanwhile, to assert doctrine by way of scripture is functionally impossible, as we see from the examples of the Arians, the Manichaeans, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, the Miaphysites, and so forth. Far from being the same, the former could be done by a child; the latter by none but God Himself. Consequently, to be Catholic or Orthodox, one need only make the judgments of a child; but to be a Protestant, one must claim to make the judgments of God.
Ironically, this is a great argument against sola scriptura. It identifies the enduring issue that without authority, scripture is unsatisfactory, and vice versa. Scripture without authority is impotent; a law without the judge. Authority without scripture is baseless; a judge without the law. A Protestant can only follow the process above by making themselves the judge. They have to validate the canon of scripture. They have to interpret the teachings. But where is this directive found in the Bible? Where does the Bible say each of us is a proper judge? Have I not gone through great labors to establish that the Bible says the exact opposite? Far from conceding this point, I would direct my interlocutors to the words of St. Augustine: “For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
False Shepherds
“How can anyone preach unless they are sent?” asks St. Paul (Rom. 10:15). Sent by whom? Christ personally appeared and sent the Apostles. He has not returned to send anyone else since. The Levitical priestly lineage was biological, but as Christ chose His Apostles chastely, so the Apostles chose their successors. Christ sent the Apostles, and they sent theirs. The Church is the “pillar of truth” – there is only one truth, there is only one mission: the mission Christ gave to the Apostles. So long as God remains God, to declare a novel mission is to depart from Christ’s. So long as God remains God, any novel spirit is not the Spirit of Truth. But the Protestants have no Apostolic succession (as defined at Nicaea). Who declared their mission and sent them? From what origin do they claim command over doctrine?
Let us observe the Biblical signs of a false church. St. Paul says false shepherds “disguise themselves as Apostles of Christ,” comparing them to Satan masquerading as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). He says “dissensions and factions” are damnable works of the flesh (Galatians 5:21). St. Peter speaks likewise, saying “false teachers” will “secretly introduce destructive heresies,” and be “sent to hell” (2 Peter 2:1-12). He says bluntly that “it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them” (2 Peter 2:21). Paul says to keep to the traditions, and keep away from “strange [ie, novel] teachings,” for “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:7-9).
So, we have a rather clear picture of the false shepherd. The ravening servant of Satan bound for destruction looks like a Christian. We have a clear picture of the fruits of his labor: clever heresies, misinterpretation, disobedience to tradition. Does this not describe Protestantism? Martin Luther himself famously complained “there are as many sects and creeds as heads.” Does this not describe Protestantism, which, due to the inherent pluralism of sola scriptura hosts the likes of everything from the racist KKK to lesbian “bishops” putting Muslim prayer rooms in church to Mormon Unitarianism, emptying Christianity of all meaning? Is Protestantism not the herald of disobedience, invented tradition, and endless schism?
God, commenting on the sons of men building the tower of Babel says, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let Us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other” (Gen 11:6-7). If nothing is impossible for godless, disobedient humanists so long as they maintain unity of thought and word, surely God’s true Church – the undeceivable pillar and foundation of truth made to show forth His wisdom – must be empowered by unity of thought and word? And isn’t God’s plan to confuse their language to stunt them a perfect image of Protestantism, in which each sect disagrees, endlessly spiraling off in new directions due to different technical language, novel traditions, and irreconcilable approaches to spirituality?
For 1,500 years, the entire Church, Catholic and Orthodox, taught the Nicene definition of Apostolic succession and mutually recognized Holy orders (RC, OC), use of icons, prayer to saints, prayer for the dead, infallibility of scripture and doctrine, sacraments, the real power of Baptism, the transformative effect of grace (theosis), the ministerial male priesthood and Episcopate, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sinlessness of Mary, the evil of abortion, the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, and much more. The Catholic and Orthodox hold all these beliefs to this today. An outsider could not tell the difference between an Eastern Rite Catholic Church and an Eastern Orthodox Church. But how many Protestant sects profess even a single one of these? Christ is the same, “yesterday, today and forever.” How, then, can any Protestant sect call itself the Apostolic Church of Christ?
Conclusion
Sola scriptura inherently leads to self-referential spirituality, as the New Covenant is extraordinarily vague. This is an existential problem, as the Bible constantly asserts that self-reliance leads to damnation. Though I would not deign to judge the souls of individual Protestants, it remains abundantly clear that Protestantism bears all the aforementioned marks of the Satanic influence, and none of the aforementioned marks of the Spirit. Protestant churches are inherently atomized, disobedient to tradition in one form or another, and rife with disagreement. The very scripture which sola scriptura depends upon condemns it both in principle and in empirical result. Furthermore, the same scripture clearly encourages obedience to the Apostolic offices.
The Apostolic Churches find their authority rooted in the Priestly lineage of Christ. They are the homes of centuries of brilliant minds teaching and peer-reviewing each other. They compiled, canonized, and translated the Bible, wrote the creed, dogmatized the Trinity, developed prayer from its infancy, and defeated heresies for 1,500 years. After 500 years of schism, an outside observer could hardly tell the difference between the Catholics and the Orthodox. With a lucid recognition of this, will we look at these austere Churches, then turn to ourselves and say, “but I can do it better?” Look at the thousand Protestant sects and say “they got it wrong; but not me?” Look at scripture’s warnings against self-reliance and invent for ourselves a false god who “doesn’t mind how we interpret?” Or accuse God of failing to give us “a pillar and foundation of truth,” instead abandoning us to ourselves?
Now, remember, this argument is not for a particular Church; it is against sola scriptura. Although Apostolic succession is clearly an incontrovertible necessity to guarantee the guidance of the Holy Spirit in faith and doctrine, that does not mean it is the only incontrovertible necessity. In fact, it can’t be the only necessity. We know this because the Apostolic Churches are in schism, which inherently means someone is not the “pillar of truth.” The only question is whether the Romans or the Orthodox are the schismatics. Protestantism is precluded regardless; it is schismatic from either point of view. But of course, my site does include a page on Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy. You can read my commentary on it here.
Additional note: the Anglican church sometimes claims Apostolic succession derived from its roots in the Catholic Church. The Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae rejected this idea, claiming several changes they made to the ordination rite made it inefficacious. Although the contemporary Orthodox did not view the change flagrant enough to nullify the rite, the Orthodox did later declare Anglican Holy orders unequivocally invalid after decades of female episcopal ordinations, explaining that, because women cannot be ordained nor ordain others, the chain was broken. The Catholics agree. This puts the Anglican argument in an impossible position. Their claim to succession depends on the Catholic succession being true. But the Catholics and Orthodox both reject that the Anglicans have succession. So, the Anglicans’ only way to justify ignoring these rulings is to deny that Apostolic succession gives them the right to make ecclesial judgments – which means they are sola scriptura Protestants.