Is Sola Scriptura a Biblical Teaching?
Where does "sola scriptura" appear in the New Testament?
Frank Piccioli
I will assume that you are either Roman Catholic, or have spoken with a Roman Catholic who has posed this question to you. This is a common question asked by Roman Catholics, who in turn are simply parroting an argument popularized by Scott Hahn (a prominent Roman Catholic apologist and convert from Evangelicalism). In melodramatic form, Hahn relates in his book (Rome Sweet Home) that he asked several of his seminary professors (including John Gerstner) where in the Bible the concept of sola scriptura can be found. He claims that he received no satisfactory answer from them, although Gerstner gives a very different account (see his response in "Rome NOT Home" in Justification by Faith Alone [Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995], 166-185).
Why is it important for Catholic apologists to argue this way? Because unless they can demonstrate from Scripture that the New Testament writers viewed certain non-scriptural sources as authoritative oral tradition, they have no precedent for the belief that we should give that same consideration to Catholic tradition. One way they have done this is to contend that Scripture gives no explicit statement of its own sufficiency. This is a curious claim, for Scripture does indeed provide such a statement:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (1 Tim 3:16-17).
Several observations need to be made about this passage. First, the Scriptures are said to be "God-breathed" (
qeovpneusto", theopneustos). Scripture alone is given this designation—the New Testament writers never apply this term to tradition. The reason Paul mentions this here is to instill in Timothy confidence in the Scriptures. Paul begins this chapter by reminding Timothy of the "difficult" times that are coming upon them, during which all kinds of heresies and disobedience will arise (3:1-9). In the face of all this, Timothy is to stand firm in the things he has "learned" (v. 14), things known from the "Scriptures" (v. 15). Why should he lean on the Scriptures in the face of all this heresy and disobedience? On what basis can he place his confidence in the Scriptures? Paul seems to anticipate these questions as potential points of wavering in Timothy’s mind, and gives the answer in vv. 16-17: Because Scripture is God-breathed (inspired and therefore infallible), it is profitable for "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." The first of these (teaching) acts as a prevention against heresy (perverse belief), while the last one (training in righteousness) is a prevention against immorality (perverse lifestyle). The two in between (rebuking and correcting) are antidotes for perverse beliefs and lifestyles. Paul’s point is that Timothy can safely rely on the Scriptures to be useful in teaching true doctrine and right practice, and in rebuking and correcting those who oppose it.Second, the God-breathed Scriptures are provided to us in order that "the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." The Greek text literally states: "in order that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work." The word "complete" is from
a[rtio" (artios) and means "adequately equipped for a task" (BAGD, "able to meet all demands"). This in itself implies that nothing more is needed in the realm of faith and practice. For if the Scriptures make the man of God "adequately equipped for a task," and that task is to teach correct doctrine and practice as well as to correct and rebuke heresy and immorality, then the Scriptures are sufficient to equip the man of God for all things that pertain to communicating the apostolic deposit.But Paul does not leave it at that. He hammers home his point that the Scriptures themselves are able to make the man of God sufficient for these things by using the word
ejxhrtismevno" (exertismenos, "fully equipped"). This is the participial form of artios that is intensified by the prefix ek. The man of God is not only "adequately equipped," but "fully equipped" to do "every good work." In context, "every good work" is defined as "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness"—in other words, correct belief and practice.Catholic apologists often appeal to Jas 1:4 as an argument against the sufficiency of Scripture in the present passage ("Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything"). Perseverance (we are told) seems here to be "sufficient" to make us "mature and complete." But (we are asked) are not other things needed beside perseverance before we can be "mature and complete"? Aside from the fact that the Greek word used here is different than that found in 1 Tim 3:17 (
tevleio" is used, not a[rtio"), Catholic apologists miss the point of both passages entirely. Each passage refers only to those things for which the subject is fitted. In the case of Jas 1:4, perseverance accomplishes maturity and completeness only in the "testing of your faith" (v. 3). In 1 Tim 3:16-17, Scripture makes the man of God "fully equipped" only to "teach, rebuke, correct, and train." Of course, the man of God also needs qualities such as love, patience, a chaste life, and other such virtues; but as far as the categories of teaching right doctrine, rebuking and correcting wrong doctrine, and training in righteousness are concerned, the Scriptures alone are said to make the man of God "fully equipped."But if the man of God is fully equipped by the Scriptures to teach correct doctrine and lifestyle, and to combat their heretical counterparts, then the Scriptures need not be supplemented by oral tradition. The Catholic apologist may respond by pointing out that Paul does not say that only Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for these things. Logically, tradition is not excluded from the equation. On the other hand, it is significant that while Paul does not say only Scripture is sufficient, he does point only to Scripture here. If Paul is attempting to instill confidence in Timothy and to give him the necessary tools for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness—and if he subscribed to the Catholic notion that Scripture is insufficient for these things and must therefore be supplemented by extra-biblical tradition—then it is indeed odd that he would omit something that is needed to do the job effectively. In the face of preventing and combating heresy, Paul says nothing about extra-biblical tradition, but points to the Scriptures alone.
But even if this passage did not exist, it is one thing to show that Scripture gives no explicit statement of its own sufficiency—it is quite another thing to show that tradition is given an equal footing with Scripture. Even if it could be shown that Scripture does not explicitly say it is sufficient in itself, it simply does not follow that the alternative must therefore be infallible church tradition. There are several steps in between that the Catholic apologist conveniently ignores.
For instance, one must first show that Scripture is insufficient, not simply that Scripture makes no explicit statement of sufficiency. Catholic apologists must at least admit the possibility that Scripture could be sufficient without having any explicit statement to that effect, but being shown from other statements that lead us in that direction. Analogous to this is the doctrine of the Trinity. Catholic apologists do not require Scripture to give an explicit declaration about this doctrine; yet they also do not hesitate to affirm its truthfulness—in this case, basing their belief on implications and inferences found in Scripture. Catholic apologists affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, not because there is an explicit statement to that effect (there is none), but because Scripture leads us in that direction. Catholic apologists may claim that they believe in the Trinity because they have it on the authority of the Catholic church, and not because it is found in Scripture. Yet they will not hesitate to prove this doctrine from Scripture if someone challenges them on it (such as a Jehovah’s Witness), revealing their true belief that it can be proven from Scripture apart from Catholic tradition. What the Catholic apologists so vehemently profess about the necessity of Catholic tradition (and the insufficiency of Scripture) to "correct" wrong belief is directly contradicted by their actual practice.
Just as Scripture leads us in the direction of the Trinity, Scripture likewise leads us in the direction of the sufficiency, not insufficiency of the Scriptures. The burden of proof is upon the Catholic apologists to show the insufficiency of Scripture in light of the obviously high authority ascribed to it by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament, and in light of the conspicuous absence of any appeal or ascribed authority to extra-biblical tradition (2 Thess 2:15, by the way, does not support the notion of a tradition that is different in content from the Scriptures).
Once the Catholic apologist has established this much, he must next show that it is Roman Catholic tradition that fills this gap and not some other church tradition (such as Eastern Orthodoxy). Indeed, there is no logical reason for choosing Rome over the Eastern Orthodox church if the criterion is church tradition; for the Eastern Orthodox church appeals to the very same church tradition to justify its own beliefs to the exclusion of Roman beliefs (e.g., the Filioque controversy, the question of Roman and papal authority, and the Easter controversy just to name a few). In these cases the Roman Catholic apologist cannot appeal to the Scriptures, for he has already argued that they are insufficient in these matters. Nor ironically can he appeal to the fathers, for a different "catholic" denomination that traces its existence to those same fathers (the Eastern Orthodox church) has arrived at a different conclusion in these matters. What it comes down to is that the Roman Catholic apologist must ultimately trust that his own fallible reasoning process has chosen the correct church.
Then the Catholic apologist must show that it is church tradition that is authoritative and not the occasional guidance of the Holy Spirit; or, as Montanus held, the prophetic office. Once this has been shown, it must then be shown that Catholic church tradition must be infallible. To marshal support from church tradition itself is circular reasoning. It is one thing to hold that church tradition is generally reliable; it is quite another thing to maintain that church tradition is infallible.
The very reason there was a need for the canon of Scripture to begin with is that, because of heretical figures such as Montanus (who denied a closed canon and believed that the prophetic office was an on-going gift given to the church of all ages), there was seen a need to distinguish between inspired, authoritative teaching and mere human opinion. In other words, there was seen a need for a "rule" (hence, canon) under which every other teaching would be subject, and by which every other teaching would be measured for truthfulness. If the church fathers viewed oral tradition as authoritative and the Catholic church as infallible, what need would there have been to establish a "rule" of Scripture? In that case, there would be no need for Scripture at all; it would be quite sufficient simply to continue handing down teachings orally from one infallible ecclesial body to the next. Catholic apologists often ask where the New Testament indicates that oral tradition would cease after the death of the apostles. The answer is, as with the canon, it is the biblical precedent we have in the New Testament regarding the Old Testament. There was likewise no binding oral tradition after the last Old Testament author laid down his pen.
E.S.