I recently read one of the articles that the anti-Catholic fundamentalist Daniel Sapia usually publishes on his website (conocereisla Verdad.org).The article in question was titled “Sola Scriptura” is not enough… why is it not enough?” I decided to read it since Daniel throws the question into the air of trying to develop an answer in accordance with what I, as a simple Catholic layman and with my limited knowledge, could tell him.
I will place Sapia’s comments in a box with a blue background, those of the Bible and other sources in green, but before entering the topic I will briefly comment on what Sola Scriptura really means.
What is Sola Scriptura?
Daniel Sapia defined Sola Scriptura (on the Catholic.net forums) as:
| Sola Scriptura means:
1. That the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith (doctrine) and practice (customs).2. That the teaching of the Bible is sufficient for people to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and by doing what it says, achieve eternal life. Corollaries: 1. The Church of Jesus Christ does not need revelations that are not found explicitly or by logical and clear implication in the Bible. 2. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of the Scriptures. Besides, Sola Scriptura does NOT mean: 1. That the Bible contains absolutely everything that God has said and done. 2. That the Word of God has not been transmitted orally on many historical occasions and situations. 3. That the Church lacks authority to interpret, teach and defend the Word of God. 4. That all unwritten tradition must be rejected a priori and fortiori. |
Let’s begin to analyze the definition point by point in light of the Bible:
| 1. That the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith (doctrine) and practice (customs). |
First of all, let us clarify that for the Catholic Church, Scripture is the written Word of God, “Norma normans non normata” (norm of norms, not normed), while for Protestants Scripture is the “unique” standard of faith. The difference is that for Protestants everything that is part of divine revelation and fundamental doctrine has been written in the Bible, for the Catholic Church, although the Bible is the maximum standard of faith, we believe that not all revelation has been written in the Bible but has also been transmitted orally, being attested in what we call “Sacred Tradition” and which is also part of the same divine revelation (The Tradition we are referring to differs from the particular traditions of each people,area or country, and rather refers to the deposit received from Christ through his apostles and successors).
Since we both agree that the Bible is the standard of faith, we can go from there to see if Sola Scriptura should be the only standard of faith.
If the Bible is the only norm of faith, it means that all fundamental doctrines must be taught by Scripture, therefore Sola Scriptura, if it is a doctrine that must be believed, should also be taught either implicitly or explicitly by Scripture.
Does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?
No, it doesn’t teach it. There is not a single biblical passage that affirms that the Bible is the only standard of faith. The passage that Protestants often use to prove Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy 3:16-17
| All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, arguing, correcting, and educating in righteousness.;Thus the man of God is perfect and prepared for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 |
The previous passage teaches that the Bible is the norm of faith (which is what the Catholic Church teaches) but it does not teach that the Bible is the norm of faith. “unique” standard of faith because this passage does not say “Sola Scriptura is inspired by God and useful…” but says: “All Scripture is inspired by God, and useful…:” which means that although all Scripture is inspired by God, it does not affirm that it alone is so, nor that it alone is useful for teaching, arguing, correcting and educating in justice. Even if someone doesn’t like it, they should recognize that the passage does NOT teach Sola Scriptura.
In short, a Catholic can live fully satisfied according to what he believes and what that passage teaches, the Protestant, on the other hand, is forced to force himself to believe that the passage says something it does not say, or what is the same, to twist it to support his private interpretation of the Scriptures.
But just as this passage is the Word of God, there are other passages that are no less inspired and also useful for teaching, arguing, correcting and educating in justice, such as the following:
| “So, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you learned from us by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15
“I praise you because in all things you remember me and you preserve the traditions as I have transmitted them to you.”1 Corinthians 11:2 |
In these inspired passages that we must take into account and obey if we believe that the Bible is our standard of faith we have:
1) We are commanded to maintain the Tradition that has been received from the apostles
2) This command is in “Name of the Lord Jesus Christ”
3) These traditions that Paul commands to be maintained in the name of Jesus include oral (verbal) and letter (written) traditions.
The great problem of fundamentalists is that they do not see the clear differentiation that the Bible makes of the human Traditions that it rejects (Colossians 2:8) and those that it orders to be maintained because they have divine origin (Like those mentioned in previous passages)
Returning to the analysis of the previous passages, you do not have to be a scholar to notice a clear contradiction between what Daniel Sapia defines as a truth of faith (Sola Scriptura) and these passages of the same Scripture, since while for Daniel the only infallible norm of faith in terms of doctrine and practice is the Bible (and emphasizes “unique”), We have nothing less than Scripture commanding us to keep not only written traditions, but ALSO those transmitted by word of mouth.(And this command is nothing less than in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ).
Now, if Sola Scriptura is biblical and so fundamental, didn’t Paul know the risk of writing this command in the name of Christ? (let us remember that Paul is only the instrument) Didn’t God know if Sola Scriptura were Biblical the danger it would be to order him to keep the traditions not only contained in what was written but also the oral traditions? If doctrine is so important, why is it neither implicitly nor explicitly taught in the Bible but rather contradicted by it?
I know that now, dear reader who has accepted Sola Scriptura as the only norm of faith, you may feel upset, perhaps identified with Sapia’s definition and perhaps even feel resistance or rejection of what I am telling you, but I ask you to be honest with yourself, what I am telling you is not my teaching, it is in all the Bibles in the world. These passages teach that Sola Scriptura is not biblical, but rather unbiblical, and as we progress in our responses to Daniel we will demonstrate this.
| 2. That the teaching of the Bible is enough for people to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and by doing what it says, achieve eternal life. |
At this point in the definition I must say that I “partly” agree with Daniel. Even when I mentioned this to an evangelical friend in a debate a few years ago he seemed very happy, he thought he had managed to convince me to accept Sola Scriptura as a Biblical doctrine, in short, he thought he had already achieved a “proselyte.”
His disappointment was not small when I explained why I agreed with him, and the reason is simple. If the Bible really is the norm of faith for us, in it we can receive and embrace the message of salvation, we can do (as Sapia says) what it says and achieve eternal life. But doing what it says implies more than accepting Christ as savior, it is accepting the Church (The body of Christ) with the authorities that Christ has established (2 Thessalonians 2:7, 1 Corinthians 4:1), submitting to them (Hebrews 13:17), accepting its dogmatic definitions as a norm of faith (Acts 15:28) and thus living in full doctrinal unity with it as required by Christ’s command (1 Corinthians1,10), therefore not wanting to impose private interpretations (2 Peter 1,20-21).
That is why it has always amazed me that it has been the Churches that claim to be governed by the Sole Bible that have to ignore complete passages of Scripture the most when they do not adapt to their interpretation and at the same time anathematize those who do not interpret as they do.
| Corollaries:
1. The Church of Jesus Christ does not need revelations that are not found explicitly or by logical and clear implication in the Bible. |
I note that this corollary is contrary to what 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 that we studied previously teach. While Sapia says that the Church does not need revelations that are not written in the Bible, Paul praises the first Christians because they preserve these traditions that they have received “by word of mouth” and “by letter.”
| Corollaries:
2. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of the Scriptures. |
Again this corollary is not in accordance with the Scriptures. When a doctrinal problem arose, the Church adopted a conciliar system to resolve them. We see a very clear example in Acts 15, there the Judaizers wanted to make the Gentiles circumcise themselves to be saved (According to the Scriptures of that time (those of the OT) one had to be circumcised), and it was the Church that at that time declared that circumcision was not required for Christians. The decision made was considered by the apostles themselves as INFALLIBLE and given in the name of none other than themselves and THE HOLY SPIRIT.
How then can it be the biblical Sola Scriptura if it is the same Scripture that grants the Church the power to “bind and loose” and define fundamental doctrine of an infallible nature?Can anyone imagine a Sapia Jew of that time claiming that he did not obey because the Bible was his only rule of faith and it mandated circumcision?
| Besides, Sola Scriptura does NOT mean:
2. That the Word of God has not been transmitted orally on many historical occasions and situations. |
This second statement explicitly contradicts the first definition where it said that the Bible (Written Word) is the only infallible norm of faith, since if this is the case and it is the only one, how is it possible then that it has also been transmitted orally on occasions?
The only way that Daniel can move forward without contradicting himself after that premise is to affirm that later that Word of God transmitted orally was completely written. That would include not only the salvation message of believing in Christ, but the entire fundamental doctrine. The truth is that if Sapia followed that line of argument he would have to prove through Scripture that this is so and everything was written or that the apostles had that intention. The truth is that this cannot be proven and there is no passage in the Bible that affirms that all the fundamental doctrine was written in the Bible, but rather there is an emphasis on the part of the apostles to teach personally more than to write, to prepare capable people who in turn can train others, instead of leaving absolutely everything written.
| “Although I have a lot to write to you, I prefer not to do it with paper and ink, but rather I hope to come see you and speak to you by word of mouth.”, so that our joy may be complete.” 2 John 12
“and how much you have heard me in the presence of many witnesses entrust it to faithful men, who are capable, in turn, of instructing others.” 2 Timothy 2:2 |
Daniel’s next corollary says:
| Besides, Sola Scriptura does NOT mean:
3. That the Church lacks authority to interpret, teach and defend the Word of God. |
In practice, sadly, evangelical Churches lack the authority to defend the word of God, since each believer with the excuse of obeying the Word of God and not “men” places their judgment and own interpretation of the Scriptures as what the Word of God says. Thus, when his private interpretation differs from what the Church teaches, he will simply attribute this to the fact that “his church has gone astray”, has not remained faithful to the “Word of God” and therefore must be reformed (found another that does adapt to his private interpretation of the Scriptures).
Sadly, Sola Scriptura not only lacks the authority to defend the legitimate interpretation of the Word of God, but it is a promoter of heresies where each believer believes what he interprets as the “Word of God”, the interpretation of the Church takes a backseat because they “are men”.
We then have each generation of Protestants seeing things through the lenses of their founder but each time having to reinvent the wheel. It is common to see many evangelical pastors giving little value to the studies of other evangelicals since at the end of the day “they are writings of men” and they are governed only by the word of God (it sounds nice but they forget that those studies were also based on the Word of God), and this boils down to nothing less than despising the biblical interpretation that their ancestors have made through their own interpretation, to rejecting any conciliar interpretation according to the biblical model through private interpretation. The rest is “men’s interpretation” (As if they had the voice of an archangel)
| Besides, Sola Scriptura does NOT mean:
4. That all unwritten tradition must be rejected a priori and fortiori. |
In practice it will be rejected a priori and fortiori when in the opinion of the believer of Sola Scriptura that interpretation goes against what he interprets the Word of God to say (which, note, is not necessarily the same as what it really says).
Sapia gives the following biblical passage without further explanation, believing that it alone proves Sola Scriptura:
| However… It is written:
“Jesus also did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”(John 20:30-31) |
The previous passage, like 2 Timothy 3:16-17, does not prove Sola Scriptura at all.
First: The passage speaks of the things written in the gospel of John (In any case Sapia would be defining the new doctrine of “Only Book of John”)
Second: What the passage really teaches is that the things that have been written in the gospel of John have been written so that we believe in Jesus and have eternal life, but it does not say that all the teaching of Jesus, which is no less important, has been written in it. It is obvious that it is vitally important to believe in Jesus, but also to know all his teaching. For the perspective of many evangelical Christians that everything comes down to accepting Christ as savior, perhaps this passage supports Sola Scriptura, but the truth is that it does not support it in any way since it does not teach that ALL THE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES are contained in it. Even if Sapia doesn’t like it, the passage doesn’t say so and we have him trying to twist a passage to make it say what he wants it to say.
After understanding how Sapia defines “Sola Scriptura” the following comment extracted from his study catches my attention:
| Why is it not enough?
Although it may seem too simple to be essential, keep in mind that it is the “Achilles heel” of the Roman Catholic response. Because according to the answer to that question, we can say that “Sola Biblia” is enough, or that “Sola Biblia” is not enough. Let me explain: If we want to mean that the Bible It is the only necessary and sufficient source to reveal God’s Plan and His Gospel of Grace for eternal Life, then our answer should be: “Sola Biblia IS ENOUGH” (…and more than enough…glory to God!) On the other hand, if we want to justify only with the Bible the necessity of the existence of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, with all its rites, practices, customs, traditions, imposed burdens, hierarchies of men, etc., then our response must be (as Catholics repeat: “Sola Biblia IS NOT ENOUGH” It is for this reason that the Catholic Church repeats ad nauseam that “Sola Scriptura” DOES NOT WORK. It is really of no use… but for its purposes. And we could even say that it is CONTRARY to its purposes. That is why in such a vehement, repetitive, almost sickly way, they will try to denigrate this truth of God. |
This is where I would like to delve deeper, since as you can see Sapia thinks that the “Achilles heel” from the Catholic perspective. Actually the opposite happens for those who know Sola Scriptura and its consequences and we will see why.
The truth is that if there were a biblical passage that could validly prove Sola Scriptura, these types of resources would be unnecessary, but the truth is that the defenders of Sola Scriptura (Sapia included) know that there is not a single biblical passage that can be used to prove this doctrine with the Bible, but as we have shown, it is Scripture itself that rejects said doctrine. There is no other alternative than to try to make believe that Catholics believe that the Word of God “it doesn’t work” and try to position themselves as who they are “faithful” to the Word of God and to the Catholics who “they have despised the Word of God” to continue “human traditions”. The whole argument boils down to that, a “delusion”.
I will give three basic reasons for the question “Achilles heel” of Sapia why Sola Scriptura is not biblical and is not sufficient:
Reason 1: It is the same Bible that teaches that one must submit to legitimately constituted authorities; rejecting them is rejecting Christ himself:
| «Whoever listens to you, listens to me;and whoever rejects you rejects me; and whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me. Luke 10:16 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they watch over your souls as those who must give an account of them, so that they do it with joy and not with regret, which would not bring you any advantage. Hebrews 13:17 |
The conflict that occurs here in essence between Sola Scriptura and the Word of God is that it is the same Word of God that teaches that these authorities constituted by Christ have the power to administer the mysteries of God (and not each believer):
| Therefore, May men consider us servants of Christ and administrators of the mysteries of God.1 Corinthians 4:1 |
Here Paul as an apostle speaks to “believers”, and makes it clear that it is up to them (the apostles and priests) to administer these mysteries of God, not to each believer individually. And it is evident that Paul and the apostles were also men, but they had an authority that they had received and that they could impose
| Although We were able to impose our authority by being apostles of Christ, we are kind to you, like a mother lovingly cares for her children. 1 Thessalonians 2,7 |
Just imagine someone interrupting Paul when he was explaining to the assembly of Believers what was written in 1 Corinthians 4:1 by someone saying: “Hey Paul, you are wrong, I cannot have you as administrator of the mysteries of God because I only believe what the Bible says” (And perhaps yes, people like Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus said it at that time, Sapia is in charge of saying it now)
In summary, Sola Scriptura IT IS NOT ENOUGH because it places the private criteria or interpretation of each believer above the interpretation of the entire Church.
Reason 2: It is the same Bible that commands to keep the traditions received from the apostles and not only the written ones but also the oral ones (which have been attested in the results of the councils and in the writings of the fathers of the Church.
| “So, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you learned from us by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15 |
I don’t go into much depth on this point but we have already studied it. While the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches that only that contained in Scripture should be believed as fundamental doctrine, it is the same Scripture that affirms that we must keep Tradition as well.
Summarizing this point, Sola Scriptura IT IS NOT ENOUGH because it is not a doctrine taught by Scripture but contradicted by it.
Reason 3: Sola Scriptura makes doctrinal unity impossible as required by the Bible itself.
| I adjure you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all have the same speech, and let there be no divisions among you;but be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10 |
Analyze sincerely, dear Reader. Do you believe that each person interpreting the Bible separately will interpret the same thing as another believer?Let’s be honest, the fact that there are thousands of different Christian denominations today, most claiming to be governed only by the Bible (as recorded in The World Christian Encyclopedia) Isn’t that proof enough that Sola Scriptura doesn’t work?Isn’t it evident that those who are governed by it continue to divide exponentially?
But this is not the most scandalous thing, the most scandalous thing is that the doctrines that are fundamental truth for some and others are often contrary and anathematize each other. The Word of God says, dear brother, that a house divided cannot stand (Matthew 12:25), and the enemy’s way of operating is precisely to divide. When the Church divides it is evidence that it is moving away from the truth because the truth is ONE. It cannot be true that according to the Presbyterians the Eucharist is a “symbol” and according to the Lutherans “The real body of Christ”, two opposite points in fundamental doctrine cannot be true.
Recently, for example, I analyzed an article in Sapia where he accused the Catholic practice of baptizing children as unbiblical, but several of the largest Protestant Churches (Lutherans, Presbyterians and Anglicans), several of them recognized as evangelical (Lutherans and Presbyterians) baptize children and anathematize those who do not. Sapia did not mention anywhere in his study what other Churches do and that it is contrary to what their denomination preaches even though both claim to be governed only by the Bible.
Is infant baptism biblical?Response to comments by Daniel Sapia, by José Miguel Arraiz
Today even the number of denominations that even claim to be “evangelicals” (although other evangelicals do not recognize them as such) that ignore the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity grows alarmingly.
A study that analyzes the most notable contradictions in terms of fundamental doctrine between denominations that are governed by the principle of Sola Scriptura is this:
I don’t give a damn! by José Miguel Arraiz
Here a Protestant could argue that these contradictions between Christian denominations are due to the fact that many (the “others”) do not interpret the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit, but let’s be honest, what we have is each believer monopolizing the Holy Spirit (writing it down in their team’s lineup and without being football) and saying that it is the other who does not have it or does not allow themselves to be guided by it. If we dare to look a little beyond our noses, we will have to accept that in every Church there are people who try to interpret the Bible in its context and with the best intentions, that many are full of the Holy Spirit but who interpret very differently from others who are also filled. What happens then?Does the Holy Spirit say one thing to some and another to others?
The truth is no, but that is not the way the Holy Spirit works (leading each believer to define fundamental doctrine individually).To define fundamental doctrine, the Holy Spirit guides his united Church, this is how he always did (Acts 15) and not in an individualistic way. That is why when Peter warned believers not to interpret the Bible “on their own” (2 Peter 1:20-21), he did not mean that they should interpret it with only the help of the Holy Spirit (they were all believers and had received it) but rather that they should not interpret it privately separated from the Church and its apostles who were the ones who could “bind and loose” (define doctrine) and were administrators of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1).
Summarizing this point, Sola Scriptura IT IS NOT ENOUGH because it makes impossible the doctrinal unity that Christ demands.
Conclusion
Dear brother who reads us. The principle of Sola Scriptura and its implications is not biblical. The evangelical brothers, many with very good intentions, have deviated from the original teaching of the gospel and have created an excuse for everyone to create new denominations and foment divisions. Believing they are governed only by the Bible, they have ignored the very teaching of the Bible and have used it to support their personal interpretations. That is what Scripture was referring to when it warned that many, due to their ignorance, would obtain their own condemnation from the same Scripture.
| “He also writes it in all his letters when he talks about this in them. Although there are things in them that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and the weak interpret crookedly – as do the other Scriptures – to your own downfall.” 2 Peter 3:16 |
To finish, I share with you a fragment of the book “Rome Sweet Home” by Scott Hahn, who was a Presbyterian pastor and for whom one of his first steps of conversion towards the Catholic Church was due to realizing that Sola Scriptura was not biblical when an intrepid student pointed it out to him:
Does Scripture teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?, by Scott Hahn
Author: José Miguel Arraiz
