Arguably the biggest difference between Catholicism and Protestantism lies in our contrasting beliefs about the sources of divine revelation. Both sides acknowledge that the Bible is the Word of God, but our agreement stops there. Protestants believe that revelation is limited solely to the Bible (a doctrine called sola scriptura, Latin for “Scripture alone”), but Catholics contend that it also comes to us through the Church’s Sacred Tradition.
This has been one of the major sticking points between us and our separated brethren ever since the Reformation, so I want to take a closer look at the doctrine of sola scriptura and see if it really holds up. In particular, let’s look at it from two angles. First, we can assess the logic behind the doctrine, and then we can examine the New Testament’s teaching about Scripture and Tradition.
The Canon Problem
Let’s start with the logic behind sola scriptura. The doctrine doesn’t simply happen to be wrong. Rather, it cannot possibly be true, and there are two big reasons why. First, we have the problem of the canon of the New Testament. If Scripture is our only source of revelation, then how can we know which books belong in Scripture (to make things easier, we are just going to focus on the New Testament, but the problem applies to the Old Testament as well)? There is no divinely inspired table of contents, and Jesus did not leave us a list of books that belong in our Bibles. Consequently, if Scripture is all we can go by, then how can we know which early Christian writings belong in the New Testament and which do not?
We often take the canon of the New Testament for granted today, but in the first few centuries of the Church, things were not that simple. In those early days, there was a lot of debate and disagreement about what Christian books really were Scripture. Some books were considered Scripture by many, yet these books failed to make the final list (such as The Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement). Other books were disputed by many but ultimately made the cut (like Revelation and Hebrews).1 In fact, the first surviving list of New Testament books that agrees entirely with what we accept today comes from St. Athanasius, who lived during the 300’s, a few centuries after the New Testament was written.2
So this leaves us with a question: how did the Church finally settle on the list of twenty-seven books that we all accept today? We cannot go too deeply into this question, but suffice it to say that the decision wasn’t made on the basis of Scripture itself. Rather, there must have been some other criteria that the Church used, so the very nature of our Bible implies that it cannot be our only source of revelation. There has to be at least one other authority to tell us what books belong in the bible.
Can the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?
Secondly, and somewhat related to the first reason why sola scriptura simply cannot work, is the fact that none of the New Testament writers could have possibly taught it. The key here is that the New Testament wasn’t written all at once. Rather, the books that comprise it were written over a period of several decades, so only the last book written could even potentially teach this doctrine.
Think about it. If the New Testament wasn’t finished yet, could anybody say that Scripture was the Church’s only infallible rule of faith and source of revelation? No, because if one did, he would be excluding the unique revelation contained in the books that would be written later. In other words, to hold to sola scriptura before the New Testament was finished would be to exclude part of God’s revelation to us. None of the earlier divinely inspired books could do that.
The only book of the New Testament that could possibly teach sola scriptura is the last one written, but even that does not work. Remember, when the New Testament was finally completed, the Church didn’t automatically know that it had the last book of the Bible. It didn’t know the exact limits of the New Testament until a few centuries later. Thus, not even the last book written could have taught sola scriptura. Its original audience would not have had a definitive list of what was and was not Scripture, so those early Christians would not have been able to abide by that teaching. As a result, no book of the New Testament could possibly teach this doctrine, so it fails to meet its own criterion of truth.
Tradition in the New Testament
Let’s change gears now and look at an argument that positively supports the Catholic position on Scripture and Tradition. To do this, let’s turn to a very important text from one of St. Paul’s letters:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
When we Catholics read this verse, the temptation is to focus on the word “traditions.” It is easy to think that the mere presence of this word wins the argument for us, but that is not quite true. Rather, the key here is the fact that these “traditions” came to the Thessalonians in two ways: via “word of mouth” (what we would call Sacred Tradition) and “by letter” (by Scripture).
In other words, St. Paul is explicitly telling us that when he was writing his letters, revelation was contained in both Scripture and Tradition, and this makes perfect sense. The Christian faith existed for decades before a single word of the New Testament was ever written, so at the very beginning, it was simply impossible for God’s revelation to be limited to Scripture. Instead, it had to come to the Church through both Scripture and Tradition, just as Paul testifies.
Still in Force
Then, as the years went by, more and more of this revelation was written down in various New Testament books (like the other letters and the Gospels), and this raises a question for us: is Scripture now sufficient for us by itself, or do we still need the Church’s Tradition as well? In other words, is St. Paul’s teaching in 2 Thessalonians still valid for us today, or was that teaching superseded when the last book of the New Testament was written?
If we go by the New Testament, we have to conclude that the teaching is still in force. The Bible never says that it is our only source of revelation, so it never tells us that Paul’s teaching has been superseded. Instead, as far as the Bible is concerned, this is the latest, most up to date teaching on the question of where we get our revelation, so it must still be valid for us today 2,000 years later.
When we put this all together, the conclusion is obvious. Revelation comes to us through both Scripture and Tradition, so the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is false. It has intrinsic problems that make it entirely unworkable, and the New Testament teaches that we need Tradition as well. As a result, we can be confident that when we follow the Church’s Sacred Tradition, we are not simply following man-made beliefs that may or may not be true. Rather, we are following genuine divine revelation, so we should adhere to it just like we adhere to the teachings of Scripture.
Endnotes
1) Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 46-53.
2) Gamble, The New Testament Canon, 54.
19 thoughts on “Why We Don’t Believe in Sola Scriptura”
As a Catholic, what am I to do when church doctrine or the words of the pope contradict sacred scriptures?
JP,
My point is this – the Bible is the complete human story from God; creation to eternity. He has revealed his plan to us, yet it seems that the RCC feels the need to put tradition and the Magisterium on par, maybe above, the Holy Scriptures.
Jesus gave us a new commandment, which actually mirrors the majority of the 10 Commandments. He also gave us simple instructions – “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them……”.
Mankind’s history, as well as the Church’s, over the past 2,000 years has not fulfilled those instructions from Jesus. That’s why He will return to destroy every sovereignty, authority, and power, and hand over the kingdom to God (1 Corinthians 15:24).
The Church doesn’t “feel the need” to put Tradition on par with Scripture. The entirety of the Christian faith was initially passed on orally. Jesus never wrote anything, and He never commanded the Apostles to write anything either. He told them to preach, and that’s what they did. They preached the Gospel, and only after a few decades did they begin to write the books that we would later collect into the New Testament. And as I explain in this article, the New Testament never tells us that we’ve finally reached the stage where it’s all in Scripture and we can just disregard Tradition. The Bible never tells us that it contains the entirety of the Christian faith. So if we want to be truly biblical, we need to adhere to Tradition just as much as we adhere to Scripture.
As for the Magisterium, that’s in Scripture too. In Acts chapter 15, we read about the Council of Jerusalem. When the early Church had a theological controversy, they called a council to decide the matter. They relied on the Magisterium (the apostles along with the elders, which we today would call bishops, of the Church) to authoritatively interpret the deposit of faith and decide the matter for them.
I’ll also answer your other question here. If we have a difficulty with something the Church teaches (and make sure it’s a genuine teaching of the Church; something a pope or bishop says off the cuff or in an informal setting is NOT official Church teaching), then we need to study the matter and try to see why the Church teaches it. At the end of the day, we shouldn’t be Catholic because we agree with everything the Church teaches. Rather, we should be Catholic because we believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ. In other words, we believe the Church’s teachings because we believe in the Church, not vice versa. In fact, we should expect to have intellectual difficulties with the Catholic faith. We’re all imperfect, and that imperfection extends to our intellects as well, so we shouldn’t expect to be able to get everything right with our unaided reason alone. We should expect to make mistakes, and that’s actually why we need the Magisterium. Because we’re inevitably going to get some things wrong, we need the Magisterium to steer us in the right direction when we do. So when we have difficulties, we should study the matter and trust that because the Catholic Church is Jesus’ Church, He won’t let it go astray in its official teachings.
Did Jesus start a new religion? I think not.
As He said, He came to fulfill the Law. The OT prophecies revealed that the Jews would reject Him. The Books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah reveal what is still awaiting us.
What “Christian” traditions would have existed around 50AD, when Paul wrote his 1st letter to the Thessalonians?
Wouldn’t Paul have taught the Jews that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of their Messiah, as found in the OT?
Yes, but Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament in unexpected ways. For example, nobody at that time expected the Messiah to die and rise from the dead before the general resurrection, so Paul would’ve shown them that this is in fact what the Old Testament teaches. So he didn’t just teach them what the Old Testament says; he also taught them the true meaning of the Old Testament, which the Jews at that time didn’t understand.
And to keep things simpler, I’ll respond to your other points here too. You ask what Christian traditions would’ve existed when Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians. Well, the entire Christian faith existed. To take just two examples, the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, as he attests in his other letters.
And I’m not sure how your last comment is relevant. Please explain what you’re getting at.
JP,
Yes.
Acts 17 states that Paul spoke to the Jews of Thessalonica in their synagogue for three sabbaths about the Scriptures. Since you have pointed out that the NT was not yet written, Paul would have discussed the OT.
Yes, he would’ve discussed the Old Testament, but more specifically, he taught them the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. That is more than just Jewish traditions. Moreover, he must have also taught them everything they need to know to have a functioning Christian community, so he would’ve taught them more than just the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. He taught them the Christian faith, and in those early days, that faith was contained both in letters and in “word of mouth.”
Also when St Paul says “by letter” he is not referring only to those of his letters which later came to be included in the Bible. We know for a fact that he wrote at least several other letters with doctrinal content, e.g. it is clear from his “first” and “second” letters to the Corinthians that he wrote them at least one letter before “First Corinthians” and at least one letter between “First” and “Second” Corinthians. Probably he wrote dozens more letters to the dioceses he had founded and others.
Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Yes, Jewish traditions.
Is this a response to my comment about the traditions “by word of mouth” and “by letter” that Paul was referring to?
Christopher:
Please read Acts 17:1-4. The Thessalonian community included Jews, Greeks sympathetic to Judaism, and numerous prominent women, didn’t it?
And his first letter was written after forming the community, according to my Catholic Bible.
Isn’t the reference to instructions on “traditions” in Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians looking back to his previous letter?
In that first letter, Paul exhorts the brethren in Thessalonica “to conduct yourselves in a way pleasing to God”. To grow in holiness, to abstain from immorality, and to refrain from cheating.
The first letter was written to the gentile community, and the second to the Jewish Christians in Thessalonica.
Yes and no, Robert. He says that the traditions came to them both “by word of mouth” and “by letter.” So yes, he’s partly referring to 1 Thessalonians, but that’s not all he’s talking about. He’s also referring to traditions that hadn’t been written down yet.
I have read a minimal amount of the New Testament; i.e., I have read it in the original Greek, Deo Gratias! to the wonderful Oblates of Mary Immaculate who not only fed and housed me, but taught me Greek. That is all of the bible that I have read. Over my life I have also read many, many translations of the Bible almost all in English, much in Latin, and a few passages in Spanish – both “catholic” translations and “protestant” translations. My onset dementia is still, again Deo Gratias!, at the mere onset stage, but if what memory remains serves, there is nowhere addressed or mentioned in the original words I read, nor in any of the translations, permission or passing reference to translations. There is NO biblical authorization for translation.
Further on the translation angle: there are a plethora of instances over the centuries where translations differed. This is the case, clear and without ambiguity, where one translation says “X” and the other says “Not X.” Nowhere in Holy Scripture is there a “dispute resolution” appendix or a decision tree for deciding which translation is correct. BUT again and again over the centuries, men [yes, almost always males] have decided which translation is correct – without revealing where in Holy Scripture they find their imprimatur – many claiming that the Holy Spirit inspired them and not the other guy.
Guy, Texas