In Jesus Christ, God became man and ushered in the New Covenant. When his earthly ministry was nearing its end, he founded his Church and gave authority to the apostles, with Peter as his chief ambassador (In language echoing Isaiah 22:20-25). Jesus then began to tell the disciples of his coming death (Matthew 16:15-21). After his death and resurrection, he commissioned the disciples, sent them just as God had sent him, filled them with the Holy Spirit, and gave them authority to forgive sins. (John 20:21-23). He commissioned them to make disciples of all peoples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and teaching them all that he commanded them, and promised that He would be with them to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:16-20). The apostles authoritatively taught the faith in written form, which became the Sacred Scriptures (along with the Old Testament), and in oral form, which became the Sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). This is reasonable that the faith was passed on using Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as we know from John’s Gospel that not all that Jesus said or did was written down, nor would it be possible to do so (John 21:25). The apostles then handed down this authority and tradition to other faithful men (1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 2:2).
This is the way in which the Christian Church has always understood that her Faith was passed on. That is, until the Reformers introduced the idea of Sola Scriptura.
Objections to Sola Scriptura
1. Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture. Scripture teaches that Scripture is authoritative (2 Tim 3:16), but Scripture does not teach that Scripture is the only authority in the life of a Christian or in the formation of Christian teachings. Scripture shows that the apostles and the leaders of the Church also have authority, and Scripture says that the Church, not Scripture is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Many times, Paul exhorted believers to hold fast to his teaching/his example (2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2). The Council of Jerusalem is the biblical model for resolving disputes and shows, again, the authority of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture and make binding doctrinal decisions. (Acts 15)
2. Sola Scriptura doesn’t tell us how to form a Canon of scripture, or that we even need one in the first place. It assumes that the canon of Scripture has always existed and that it has always been agreed upon. Neither is true. Instead, the Canon of Scripture, whether the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant canons are all a matter of Tradition.
3. Sola Scriptura does not provide a rubric for determining which theological doctrines are essential to the Christian faith, and which are not.
4. Sola Scriptura is inconsistent with how the early church functioned. Even after the writings of the New Testament were completed, Sola Scriptura was not held by the Church.
5. Sola Scriptura assumes Scripture is self-interpreting and straightforward. It also assumes that Scripture, without an interpreter, is enough to convey the Gospel. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) illustrates that Scripture cannot always be understood without a guide. In this story, even when a guide is needed, we do not see the Holy Spirit directly guiding the Ethiopian eunuch. Instead, we see that the Holy Spirit sent Phillip as this guide.
6. Sola Scriptura assumes everyone can read or ought to be taught to read. It also assumes everyone is intelligent enough to understand all of scripture. Even since New Testament times, the vast majority of all people have not been able to read or could not afford a copy of the Scriptures. If Sola Scriptura is true, Christians who cannot read cannot be sure of the authenticity of their Christian faith.
7. Sola Scriptura encourages private interpretations that abuse scripture, and then leaves no way to address or refute private interpretations except to present an alternative interpretation, which the abuser can simply choose to reject. There is no authoritative way to call out heresy as heresy. Sola Scriptura also encourages isolationism, where Christians attempt to practice their faith in private, with Bible in hand, but without the Church body.
8. Sola Scriptura makes obedience to Christian truths contingent upon private, time-consuming study, and therefore gives excuses for delaying obedience. Though Christians are commanded to study to show themselves approved (2 Timothy 2:15) and to always be ready to give themselves an answer (1 Peter 3:15), is it reasonable to expect that every individual Christians must confirm, for themselves, all Christian teachings?
9. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sola Scriptura encourages “interpretation-fatigue” where perfectionists who become overwhelmed by Scripture and doctrinal debates and simply give up caring, too afraid to misinterpret anything, and stop caring about doctrine altogether.
10. Sola Scriptura leaves no effective approach for resolving disagreements when they arise. When two interpretations disagree, the person who can argue their side better wins. More often, when two interpretations disagree, the two sides split into different camps who both think they are right, which eventually turn into different denominations, and the pattern continues.
11. Sola Scriptura argues that the Church Magisterium does not have authority to interpret Scripture because humans are sinful and fallible, but fails to recognize that this argument would disqualify individual persons from interpreting Scripture too. The Holy Spirit used fallible, sinful men to pen the words of scripture. Is the Holy Spirit arbitrarily limited to speaking authoritatively through men, but only when they are using the written word, but not when they are communicating or teaching in other forms or at other times? In the same way, Protestants who reject the teaching authority of the Church on the basis of personal sinfulness and fallibility seem to fail to recognize that they, too, are sinful, fallible men. Again, why is it reasonable to believe that the Holy Spirit can guide and protect the one from doctrinal error, but not the other?
12. Sola Scriptura plays upon our pride and sinfulness. It is tempting to think that the highest view of Scripture would be to leave its final interpretation to the individual, aided by the Holy Spirit. But what if this is actually the lowest, most self-centered, and most prideful way of viewing it? It is easy for us to see when other Christians who ignore the Holy Spirit and who twist Scripture to excuse their sin, but it is almost impossible for us to see it in ourselves. It is certainly true that the Holy Spirit guides the individual believer, but if the final, authoritative interpretation of Scripture is solely up to each individual person, how are we to be sure that our own sin and pride will not get in the way of us interpreting things when it is most tempting for us to do so? Certainly Catholics (including members of its Teaching Magisterium) are at risk of personal pride and sinfulness as much as anyone is, but it is for exactly this reason that we need an infallible source of interpretation that cannot be tainted by personal pride or sinfulness.
The Teaching Authority of the Church
The Church that Christ founded is the Catholic Church. He has given this Church authority to teach. He has given this Church His Holy Spirit to guide it, He has promised that He will never leave us, and He has promised that the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church.
Just as Scripture must be infallible, so must the Church be in its authority to interpret Scripture.
A Final Note
As an Evangelical Christian, the hard part of changing my mind about Sola Scriptura had nothing to do with the doctrine itself. The challenge was not even that I had to admit that Christ gave authority to a church. Rather, the challenge was admitting that it was the Catholic Church in particular that had this authority. I would encourage Evangelicals to keep this in mind when thinking about Sola Scriptura. If an Evangelical finds the arguments against Sola Scriptura are not persuasive, that is fine. I would ask, though, that they reflect, at least in passing, on whether the great inconvenience of Sola Scripture being false has some impact on their perception of the arguments against it.