The Principle of Sola Scriptura: A Historical and Theological ExaminationThe principle of sola scriptura, which translates to "by Scripture alone," is a foundational doctrinal pillar of the Protestant Reformation. This principle asserts that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice, rejecting any external authority, be it tradition or ecclesiastical hierarchy, that does not align with Scripture.
Historically, sola scriptura was a response to the perceived excesses and traditions of the Catholic Church during the early 16th century. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin argued that the Bible, not the Church, was the ultimate authority in matters of faith. They contended that the Scriptures were clear in their teachings, accessible and understandable to all believers, and sufficient for salvation and righteous living.
However, the interpretation and application of sola scriptura have been subjects of debate within Christianity. Some argue that the Bible does not explicitly teach the doctrine of sola scriptura, suggesting that it is, ironically, a tradition of men rather than a biblical mandate. Critics point out that the Bible itself emphasizes the importance of tradition and the Church's teaching authority. For instance, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Furthermore, the development of the biblical canon—the process by which the books of the Bible were selected and recognized as authoritative—was guided by the early Church's tradition and councils. This historical fact raises questions about the self-sufficiency of the Bible since the Church played a crucial role in determining the Bible's contents.
The debate also extends to the practical implications of sola scriptura. Without a central teaching authority, different interpretations of Scripture can lead to doctrinal fragmentation, as evidenced by the multitude of denominations within Protestantism. This has led some to question whether sola scriptura can provide a unified basis for theology and ethics.
Despite these challenges, many Protestant denominations continue to uphold sola scriptura as a vital tenet of their faith, emphasizing the Bible's role as the ultimate rule of faith and practice. They argue that while the Church and tradition have their places, they must be continually reformed and evaluated against the teachings of Scripture.
Why Sola Scriptura Is Unbiblical, Irrational, and Contrary to Early Christian Tradition
The doctrine of sola scriptura—the belief that Scripture alone is the sole infallible authority for Christian faith and practice—has been a cornerstone of Protestant theology since the Reformation in the 16th century. While it aims to elevate the Bible as the ultimate guide for believers, a closer examination reveals that sola scriptura is unbiblical, irrational, and at odds with the practices and teachings of early Christians and the Church Fathers. In this blog post, we’ll explore these issues through historical evidence, logical analysis, and the words of early Christian leaders, showing why this doctrine fails to align with the broader Christian tradition.
Sola Scriptura Is Unbiblical: The Bible Doesn’t Teach It
At its core, sola scriptura claims that all necessary Christian doctrine must be explicitly found in the Bible, and no other authority—be it tradition, the Church, or ecclesiastical leaders—holds equal weight. However, the Bible itself does not support this idea. In fact, Scripture points to the importance of tradition and the Church as authoritative alongside the written word.
One of the most frequently cited verses to defend sola scriptura is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” While this affirms the inspiration and usefulness of Scripture, it does not claim that Scripture is the sole authority. The text says Scripture is “profitable,” not sufficient on its own, and it doesn’t address the question of what constitutes the canon of Scripture—a critical issue we’ll return to later.
Moreover, the Bible explicitly endorses the role of oral tradition. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul instructs, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Here, Paul places oral tradition on equal footing with written teachings, directly contradicting the idea that Scripture alone is sufficient. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:2, Paul praises the Corinthians for maintaining “the traditions” he delivered to them. These passages show that the early Christian community relied on both written and oral teachings, a practice that sola scriptura dismisses.
The Bible also points to the Church as an authority. In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul describes the Church as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” suggesting that the Church has a role in preserving and interpreting divine truth. If Scripture alone were sufficient, why would the Church be given such a significant role? The absence of any biblical passage explicitly teaching sola scriptura, combined with clear endorsements of tradition and the Church, makes this doctrine unbiblical at its foundation.
Sola Scriptura Is Irrational: Logical and Practical Flaws
Beyond its lack of biblical support, sola scriptura is irrational when examined logically and practically. One of the most glaring issues is the problem of the canon. Sola scriptura assumes that the Bible is the sole infallible authority, but the Bible does not contain a list of its own books. The canon of Scripture was determined by the Church through councils like those in Rome (382) and Carthage (397), which relied on criteria such as apostolic authorship and widespread use in liturgy—criteria external to Scripture itself. As noted in a post on X, this process suggests an authority beyond Scripture, undermining the very premise of sola scriptura. If the Church was necessary to define the canon, how can Scripture alone be the ultimate authority?
This leads to a circular reasoning problem. To use sola scriptura to determine what counts as Scripture, one must already know what Scripture is—but that knowledge comes from the Church, not the Bible. As Tim Staples points out in his article on timstaples.com, “reason clearly rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle because one cannot determine what the ‘scriptura’ is using the principle of sola scriptura.” The doctrine collapses under its own logic: it requires an external authority to establish the very text it claims as its sole authority.
Practically, sola scriptura has led to endless division within Christianity. If Scripture alone is the final authority, and each individual can interpret it without the guidance of tradition or an authoritative Church, then disagreements are inevitable. The result is the proliferation of thousands of Protestant denominations, each claiming to follow the “clear” teachings of Scripture. A post on X highlights this issue, noting that sola scriptura “leads to endless interpretations, splitting Christians into many denominations.” The Catholic argument, as articulated by Catholic Answers Magazine, is that this splintering demonstrates the unworkability of sola scriptura. If the Bible were truly sufficient and clear on all essential matters, why do sincere believers arrive at such vastly different conclusions on issues like baptism, the Eucharist, and salvation?
Sola Scriptura Goes Against Early Christians and Church Fathers
Perhaps the most compelling evidence against sola scriptura is its absence in the early Church. The first Christians did not have a complete New Testament, as the last books were written in the late 1st century, and the canon was not formally defined until the 4th century. As a Reddit user (u/Malba_Taran) points out, “the Early Church didn’t have the New Testament written… How could they support ‘sola scriptura’ without the scripture?” Early Christians relied heavily on oral tradition and the authority of the Church, passed down through apostolic succession, to guide their faith and practice.
The Church Fathers, far from endorsing sola scriptura, consistently emphasized the interplay of Scripture, tradition, and the Church’s authority. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. c. 200), in his work Against Heresies, stresses the importance of apostolic tradition: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith” (3.1.1). While this passage is often cited by Protestant apologists to support sola scriptura, it actually underscores the role of the apostles in transmitting the Gospel both orally and in writing, affirming tradition as a co-authority with Scripture.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), another frequently quoted Father, does speak highly of Scripture in his Catechetical Lectures: “For concerning the divine and Holy mysteries of the faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures” (Lecture 4.17). However, as Ken Hensley notes on chnetwork.org, Cyril also insisted on the necessity of interpreting Scripture within the context of the Church’s tradition. Cyril’s broader teachings include distinctly Catholic doctrines, such as the real presence in the Eucharist, which he believed were obligatory—not optional—based on the Church’s authority, not Scripture alone. This shows that Cyril did not practice sola scriptura as Protestants understand it.
Origen (d. c. 254) further illustrates this mindset: “The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (Fundamental Doctrines 1, Preface, 2). Origen’s words, as cited by Catholic Answers Magazine, reflect a view where tradition and the Church are indispensable for understanding truth, a far cry from the Protestant notion of Scripture alone.
Protestant apologists often cherry-pick quotes from the Fathers to suggest they supported sola scriptura. For example, Augustine’s statement, “I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine” (Letters, 148.15), is cited by Credo House Ministries to imply that Augustine prioritized Scripture over human writings. However, Augustine also wrote, “I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so” (Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’, 5:6). Augustine’s broader theology affirms the Church’s role in interpreting Scripture, showing that his view was not sola scriptura but a balanced reliance on Scripture, tradition, and the Church.
The early Church’s approach to resolving disputes further demonstrates the absence of sola scriptura. When controversies arose, such as the Arian heresy in the 4th century, the Church did not appeal to Scripture alone but convened councils (like Nicaea in 325) to define doctrine authoritatively. The term homoousios (of the same substance), used to affirm the Trinity, is not found in Scripture but was established by the Church’s authority, as noted by James Attebury on jamesattebury.wordpress.com. This practice shows that the early Christians relied on the Church’s interpretive authority, not Scripture in isolation.
Conclusion: A Call to Reconsider Sola Scriptura
Sola scriptura may have been an attempt to reform the Church during the 16th century, but it is neither biblical, rational, nor historical. The Bible itself endorses the role of tradition and the Church, undermining the claim that Scripture alone is sufficient. Logically, the doctrine is self-refuting, as it cannot account for the canon of Scripture without appealing to an external authority. Historically, the early Christians and Church Fathers operated within a framework where Scripture, tradition, and the Church were inseparable, a view that aligns more closely with Catholic and Orthodox teachings than with Protestantism.
As Dave Armstrong argues on patheos.com, citing only the Fathers’ high view of Scripture while ignoring their emphasis on tradition and the Church is a “half-truth” that distorts their beliefs. The early Church’s reliance on apostolic tradition and ecclesiastical authority offers a more cohesive and historically grounded approach to Christian doctrine. For those who value the wisdom of the early Christians, reconsidering sola scriptura in light of this broader tradition may lead to a deeper understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints.
In conclusion, the principle of sola scriptura remains a significant and influential concept in Christian theology. Its implications for authority, interpretation, and church practice continue to be discussed and debated among theologians and believers alike. As with any doctrinal issue, the discussion around sola scriptura invites Christians to engage with their faith critically and thoughtfully, seeking to understand the role of Scripture in the light of history, tradition, and reason.
Sources
Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4.17.
Origen, Fundamental Doctrines, 1, Preface, 2.
Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’, 5:6.
Augustine, Letters, 148.15.
Hensley, Ken. “Is Sola Scriptura Historical? Part III: Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church.” The Coming Home Network, chnetwork.org, 2018.
Staples, Tim. “Sola Scriptura – An Unbiblical Recipe for Confusion.” timstaples.com, 2014.
Armstrong, Dave. “Sola Scriptura: Church Fathers (?), & Myself (?), by Analogy.” patheos.com, 2018.
Attebury, James. “Objections to Sola Scriptura.” jamesattebury.wordpress.com, 2016.
Catholic Answers Magazine. “Did the Early Christians Subscribe to Sola Scriptura?” catholic.com, 2009.
Posts on X highlighting the logical contradictions and historical issues with sola scriptura.
.jpg)