The Doctrine of ‘Scripture Alone’ Refuted
8m read • Nov 2, 2024
Written by Thomas J. Swanson
Last edited 12/28/24What is Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine, first put forward by the Protestant reformers, which says that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.
Even today, this is upheld by millions of Christians who adhere to the Protestant tradition or its descendant sects. Sola Scriptura is arguably the only remaining distinctive that unites all of Protestantism. Yet often, Sola Scriptura is assumed by ordinary Protestant Christians and goes completely unexamined and unquestioned. In this article, we will examine its epistemic coherence and demonstrate its failure.
In order to do this, we first need to define the sufficiency of Scripture. Protestants assert that Scripture contains all truths of revelation either implicitly or explicitly. The claims of Sola Scriptura are dependent upon this doctrine because Scripture cannot be the only infallible rule if it is not, in itself, sufficient to assent to all revealed truths.
The Protestant Westminster Confession of Faith teaches:
6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. (2 Tim. 3:15–17, Gal. 1:8–9, 2 Thess. 2:2) Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (John 6:45, 1 Cor 2:9–12) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (1 Cor. 11:13–14, 1 Cor. 14:26, 40) [Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:6]
Thus, in order to refute Sola Scriptura it will suffice to disprove the sufficiency of Scripture (as Protestants define it).
A brief preliminary note: Catholics affirm a form of the sufficiency of Scripture. For the Catholic, Scripture is sufficient to furnish a man with faith, hope, and charity. For the Protestant, Scripture contains all revealed truths as the object of our faith.
Criteria for Inspired Scripture
If a Protestant was asked “How do you know if a book is inspired by God?” The typical response is that if a book is written by an Apostle or Prophet, is in agreement with apostolic doctrine, and in a lofty style, then it belongs in the canon of Scripture. Though these criteria are helpful, they aren’t sufficient to know, in principle, which books belong in Scripture.
The Protestant criteria:
Written by an Apostle or Prophet: While writings by the Apostles are authoritative, they aren’t automatically qualified as inspired Scripture. St. Paul’s sermon notes, and grocery list, despite being from an Apostle, would not be inspired Scripture.
Doctrinal Agreement: Even if the text aligns with the teachings of the Apostles, it’s still not necessarily inspired Scripture. St. Paul’s sermon notes or private letters may contain sound doctrine which is in agreement with apostolic teaching, but they still aren’t inspired writings.
Lofty Style: Though a book may have the previous two attributes and also be written in such a lofty style; there are countless writings beyond Scripture that also exhibit a lofty style, and conversely, there are parts of canonical Scripture that are not written in a particularly lofty style. This too is insufficient.
This set of criteria, often employed by Protestants to prove the canonicity of Scripture, does not enable us to know what books are inspired due to the fact that each of these attributes are shared with other non-canonical writings. To show this, we know that St. Paul’s original letter to the Corinthians, though it shares all the aforementioned attributes, is not canonical Scripture.
“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.” (1 Cor 5:9).
The Nature of Inspiration
If St. Paul writes a book and hands it to his assistant, is St. Paul’s assistant supposed to believe that it’s inspired Scripture? How can he know if it is?
In order for the assistant to know that the book is inspired by God, St. Paul would have to tell him that it is. This is due to the nature of inspiration: you cannot feel or see inspiration, it is an extraordinary act of God, and a revealed truth. As St. Paul teaches:
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14)
Inspiration cannot be discerned naturally, just as you cannot know the doctrine of the Trinity from nature. Both the inspiration of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity are points of revelation, which need to be revealed by God in order to be known in principle.
Some object by saying that the books of Scripture have certain effects, such as the correctness and spiritual usefulness of the text, by which we can know it’s inspired. But while these effects of inspiration are useful, they share similarities with countless other non-canonical writings. Many books that have been written are very correct (eg. the Summa of St. Thomas), and many are spiritually useful (eg. 1 Clement), therefore these effects do not isolate for us which texts are inspired by God. While we’re able to see these particular effects of inspiration they’re still insufficient, even coupled with the aforementioned attributes, to know what texts are inspired and which are not but share the same attributes and similar effects.
To know that a book is inspired we need a divine revelation, because of the supernatural character of inspiration. The scholastics refer to Scripture as supernatural according to its substance (supernaturale quod substantium). Due to this supernatural quality, inspiration cannot be deduced through natural reason; it must be revealed to us by God.
Thus, in order to know that a book is inspired, its inspiration must be revealed by God through a source of revelation.
Catholics believe that the scriptural authors knew their writings were inspired by way of revelation, and that they taught this to others by word of mouth, (i.e. Sacred Tradition).
Divergent Views
So we end up with two divergent views:
Catholic View: The Scriptural author witnessed that the book was inspired by God; this fact was not written down in the book itself but passed down through Tradition.
Protestant View: Protestants examine the attributes of books based on a set of determined criteria and deduce that they are inspired books.
Catholics do not deny these criteria of canonicity but recognize that, on their own, they are insufficient to discern inspiration because, as shown above, these attributes are clearly shared with other books.
As said previously, it is impossible to know in principle that a book is inspired by God through a set of perceived attributes.
Analogy: If I tell you there is a 6 foot tall mammal, you can only guess that since it’s 6 foot tall and a mammal that it’s human; but you cannot know with certainty. Only if I told you the animal is rational would you know that it’s human.
Protestants rely on attributes that are shared with other non-scriptural texts, to guess which books are inspired. It is as if they are deducing that because an animal is 6ft tall and a mammal that it is in fact a human. Whereas Catholics know the animal is rational, by way of Sacred Tradition, and therefore know with certainty the animal is human.
Just as the height and classification of an animal alone do not definitively identify it as a human, the attributes used by Protestants to validate Scripture do not uniquely confirm its inspiration.
Catholics and Protestants, therefore, arrive in two completely different places:
For the Catholic: We end up with a point of revelation which reveals to us that a text is inspired. And we say that from the nature of inspiration that this is the only sufficient way to assent to the fact that such and such a book is inspired.
For the Protestant: They end up with a collection of attributes that are shared by other books. This is not sufficient to discern inspiration.
The Analogy of St. Paul
With the above in mind, imagine that you are the assistant of St. Paul. St. Paul hands you his book, and asks “Is this Scripture?” You do not know if it’s Scripture and you cannot know in principle. You can only examine its attributes and make a guess based on your analysis. It’s only once St. Paul tells you that the book is inspired by God, that you can know that it belongs to the canon of inspired Scripture.
Protestants stand in the position of the assistant before St. Paul tells them the book is inspired. They have not been revealed the canonicity of Scripture, so they must try to deduce it using natural reason.
Catholics stand in the position of the assistant after St. Paul tells them that the book is inspired. Through Sacred Tradition, we know which books are inspired because this information has been handed down by the inspired writers themselves, and made known to us through Sacred Tradition.
Catholics believe St. Paul witnessed that the book of Philemon, for example, was inspired by God. St. Paul revealed this to others, through oral teaching. This revelation was passed down through the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us,
either by word of mouth or by our letter." (2 Th 2:15)
The Problem with Sola Scriptura
There are only three ways that we could know a book is inspired:
Natural Reason
Sacred Scripture
Sacred Tradition
The first way, as we have already explained, is not possible due to the supernatural character of inspiration. The second way is clearly absurd, since Scripture itself does not tell us which books are inspired (eg. nowhere are Esther or Philemon said to be inspired). Some point to 1 Timothy 3:16 which only tells us that there are books that are inspired, without giving us a list of those books.
This leaves us with the third way, as the only valid option. Sacred Tradition is the only way to know a book is inspired by God. Unfortunately for Protestants, this option is not available to them because of their insistence on the sufficiency of Scripture and Sola Scriptura. Protestants also deny an infallible Tradition containing revelation apart from Scripture, because they hold that Scripture alone contains all truths of revelation. The failure of Sola Scriptura becomes clear.
Since Protestants are unable to know in principle which books were inspired by God, and they preclude the possibility of revelation outside of Scripture itself, the Protestant doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture unravels.
Sola Scriptura fails to provide Protestants with a means to know what books were inspired. Moreover, the canon of Scripture itself, as a fact of revelation, is not contained in the Bible or knowable through natural means, and can only be known in principle through Sacred Tradition.
Conclusion
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura fails tremendously to provide a valid framework for identifying the inspired canon. Protestant reliance on insufficient criteria leaves the Protestant with no way to know what books are inspired. Protestants laymen are expected to just “trust the plan” and hope that their completely unique 66-book canon actually contains the Word of God, and is the correct canon among many, and doesn’t leave any inspired books out, despite them not having a revelation of the canon to point to. The overreliance on attributes like apostolic authorship or doctrinal consistency, while seemingly satisfying, does not validate inspiration and undermines the supernatural character of Sacred Scripture.
Protestantism neglects the crucial role of Sacred Tradition in revealing the inspired canon. By denying Sacred Tradition, Sola Scriptura defeats itself. Since its own principles cause inspiration to be unknowable. And without Sacred Tradition to affirm which texts are inspired, the very claims of Sola Scriptura are reduced to absurdity and collapse.
Thus, the assertion that Scripture alone contains all truths of revelation and is the only infallible rule of faith is not merely a doctrinal difference; it is a profound inadequacy for any Christian. Only through Sacred Tradition can we know, in principle, the inspired nature of Scripture, and confidently affirm its place as “God-breathed”, with supernatural faith in what God has revealed. The failure of Sola Scriptura invites the inquiring soul to examine the historic and apostolic faith of the Roman Catholic Church, which has long upheld the inspired canon on the basis of Sacred Tradition revealed and handed down by the Apostles, long before Luther and his disciples developed the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. While my sympathy is with many Sola Scriptura Protestants, who truly love Scripture, they must ultimately recognize that Christianity cannot be based on 16th century novelties which sought to re-invent how we understand the faith. And I think any honest Protestant perceiving the fruits of Sola Scriptura today in the low-church evangelical word, which has reduced Christianity to a self-help message, will see its failure and at least begin to inquire into the Church from which Luther and his disciples schismed using the pre-text of Sola Scriptura.
"But if I should be delayed, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (St. Paul, 1 Timothy 3:15)
The videos below were sources I used to write this article and that I owe many of the arguments to. If you wish to learn more about this topic give them a listen:
If you enjoyed this article or found it helpful and would like to support our apostolate, please sign up with your email below to receive news and updates about NeedRome.net, and to be notified when we post a new article. God bless!