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 both infallible and concretely demonstrable. The opposing claim – made by the Apostolic Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) – is that the right to infallibly define doctrine 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

Old Covenant religion begins with the reception of the Ten Commandments. God’s next act of business is to spend the majority of the next 27,000 contiguous words describing liturgical statutes between Exodus and Leviticus. Conversely, there are 223 words in 1 Cor. 11:23-32, the only explicit description of Apostolic liturgical practice in scripture. And even this was not written for instruction; it was written to scold Corinth. God’s command included the 613 Mosaic statutes and 10 chapters of Levitical conduct. He makes it clear that strictly following this explicit law is what binds them to Him (Lev. 26:3-13). Christ’s “new commandment” is nine words: “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 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. They knew they had the ability to create a robust manual for future generations, but chose not to. 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). 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 how they do it.

Nowhere does the Bible say “the Father generates Jesus, the coequal Son.” One could easily surmise from the words of scripture – with much company, up to the Council of Nicaea – that Christ is the “firstborn of all creatures,” and called “God” analogically, merely signifying a profound created participation (1 Col. 1:15). One could easily argue that that is far more intrinsically probable than God somehow becoming a man. Nowhere does scripture say the word “Trinity,” nor that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Nowhere does scripture say Christ has a human and divine nature nor a human and divine will. Perhaps most significantly, scripture does not contain an index of the canon of scripture. It seems the list of historical texts truly inspired by the Holy Spirit would itself need to be divinely revealed; but scripture does not divinely reveal this list.

The Interpretation Paradox

Which is the higher authority – the law, or the judge applying the law? The judge is bound to serve the law, and in this sense the law is higher. But the judge interprets the law’s meaning in the context of the situation, considering not only the letter but the mind of the legislator and legal precedent. We can see the question is paradoxical. Without the law, the judge has nothing to rule on; 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 – scripture, or the Christian reading scripture? In interpreting scripture, the believer is bound to serve the Bible as the word of God, and in this sense scripture is the higher authority. But the interpreter 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 also paradoxical. Without scripture, 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 false tradition.

Scripture 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 (perditionem)” (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.

What is the solution to this problem? One may argue that the Bible is so clear that none could possibly deviate from it in good faith. But we’ve already shown scripture describe itself as easily misinterpreted due to vagueness, obscurity, and common moral confusion. 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; if it were so, then all Christians would agree on all major doctrines, but none can say this is the case in a world with Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, and the KKK. But someone out there needs to be judging scripture! The law needs the judge just as much as the judge needs the law. Who is this judge?

The Pillar of Truth

There is only one truth; there is no division in God. Christ came to give us the one truth, so 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). The importance of this role cannot be overstated. We are justified by faith because faith is the sacrifice of our greatest possession – our intellect – to God. Like the Levitical sacrifices, the faith must be spotless, and the Church is the means of ensuring this (Ex. 12:5). How does Christ protect His Church from being led astray?

Under the Old Covenant, Christ protected the Church from error through two ministries. First, the ordinary judicial ministries of the Levites and Sanhedrin. Second, the extraordinary ministry of the prophets, whom God gave the charism of divine infallibility (described in Deut. 18:20-22) to bring the people back to Him under extreme circumstances. This system was not democratic. Disobedience to the Levites and Sanhedrin was punishable by death (Deut. 17:8-13). When Core rose up against this structure, God responded to the attempted schism by opening up the earth beneath his feet and immediately condemning him to Hell (Numbers 16). While the Old Law was in force, Christ Himself told His disciples to obey the Pharisees – His future murderers – “for they sit on the chair of Moses” (Matthew 23:1-3). This system of ordinary and infallible governors with absolute, unquestionable authority protected the Old Covenant Church from error.

Christ came “not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them” (Matt 5:17). He fulfills this authority structure in the Apostles. Christ gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of Heaven” and tells him whatever he “binds on earth is bound in Heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19). He repeats this phrase when conferring like judicial authority to the other Apostles (Matt 18:15-18). As He had established the biological Levitical succession, Christ establishes a spiritually hereditary Apostolic succession. 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). The hierarchy of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons mirrors the Jewish high priests, priests, and Levites.

But authority is useless without an extraordinary ministry like that of the Prophets. Before giving him the keys, Christ first renames Simon “Rock” (Peter) and tells him that “on this rock, [He] will build [His] Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it,” thus promising the same divine protection from error previously guaranteed by the prophets (Matt. 16:18-19). How is it guaranteed under the New Covenant? At the Last Supper, Christ gave 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! The Holy Spirit infallibly speaking through the college of Apostles and their successors fulfills the role of the prophets. We see this power at work in Acts.

In 107 AD, hardly a few years after the death of his master (St. John the Apostle), St. Ignatius of Antioch summarized these points pithily: “Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the [universal] Church.” It is clear from scripture and tradition that Christ did not establish an invisible body of true believers, but a visible body of true shepherds. This unbroken, Apostolic chain continues today in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Now, obviously, unquestionable authority to bind and loose can only exist in one Church. I am not suggesting both of these Churches are true; rather, I argue here that succession plus something is required to exercise extraordinary magisterial power – namely, unity with the Bishop of Rome. But that is irrelevant for the topic at hand, which is that Protestantism, lacking true Apostolicity, is disqualified either way.

Circularity?

Sometimes, a Protestant will accuse the position above of circularity. That is, it seems to claim the authenticity of the Bible relies on the authenticity of the Church, but then turns around and proves the authenticity of the Church with 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 Nicene 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? Let’s use an analogy: suppose you were presented with some unbelievably difficult, unsolved math problem. Would there be a real distinction between you trying to solve it yourself versus identifying that Cambridge University is good at that sort of thing and asking them for help? Obviously there would. Most people would never come to the truth doing the former, whereas anyone could do the latter. This example alone should be enough to explain the difference, but in reality, the situation is even more dire:

Doctrine, by its nature, requires divine revelation. That is, it is incumbent on God to reveal it, not on man to discover it. So a proper analogy would rather be that we are faced with a math problem with an unknown variable, and the only possible way to solve it is by God giving the answer. Not only this, it is easy to become convinced God has given you the answer when He hasn’t, like the Arians, Pelagians, Gnostics, Manichaeans, Apollinarians, Nestorians, Monothelites, Themistians, and all the other heretics throughout Christian history. Again, identifying that God answers questions through the Apostles’ successors can be done by any child; actually answering the question by none but the Holy Spirit. Consequently, to be Catholic or Orthodox, one need only make the judgments of a child; but to be a Protestant, one must baselessly claim to make the very 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 scripture? Where does scripture 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 Cor. 11:13-15). He says “dissensions and factions” are damnable works of the flesh (Gal. 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 avoid “[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, departure from tradition. But does this not describe the fruit of 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 novel tradition and endless schism?

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 Presbyterate 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?

Will you argue that we can ignore today’s Apostles if they are misbehaving? That we are permitted to judge them by personal standards before giving them obedience? Let us look to those Apostles whom Christ Himself chose. 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? Absolutely 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 blaspheme against God by suggesting some modern scandal would justify rejecting the authority of the true Church? Who, knowing that Christ came to conquer division and error, would introduce it into His body and make themselves His enemy?

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 1,000 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 other 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 Byzantines are the schismatics. Protestantism is disqualified regardless; it is schismatic from either point of view. But of course, my site does include a page explaining the disqualification of 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 invalid. 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.