Is the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Biblical?
Growing up as a devout Protestant committed to the principles of the Reformation, I was taught the doctrine of Sola Scriptura- the belief that the only infallible authority for theological truth is the Bible. One popular Protestant website defines Sola Scriptura in this way:
The Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
“Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what Sola Scriptura means.”
Furthermore, the Westminster Confession of Faith (a Protestant theological treatise from the 17th century) states the following about Sola Scriptura:
The whole purpose of God about everything pertaining to his own glory and to man’s salvation, faith, and life is either explicitly stated in the Bible or may be deduced as inevitably and logically following from it…The infallible standard for the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. And so any question about the true and complete sense of a passage in the Bible…can be answered by referring to other passages which speak more plainly.
As a sort of thought experiment to determine truth, I propose putting Sola Scriptura to its own test- in other words, I will search the Scriptures to see if Sola Scriptura is found in the Bible. If it is found in the Bible, Sola Scriptura is self-evidently true, since the Scriptures are true. However, if Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, it cannot possibly be true, since then Sola Scriptura would contradict its own claim about the Bible being the sole infallible source of authority.
Let us start by examining 2 Timothy 3:16-17, a common proof text for Sola Scriptura:
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.
We can directly deduce from these verses that Scripture is God-inspired and equips the man of God for good works. However, not much else can be deduced from these verses, and they nowhere state that Scripture alone is the infallible source of Christian doctrine. It is also important to note that when the Apostle Paul here says “Scripture,” he means the Old Testament and not the New Testament, since the New Testament was not yet complete at the time of his writing.
Another common proof text is Revelation 22:18-19:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Here we are warned not to add or take away from the words of the Book of Revelation (or, more generally, not to add or take away from Scripture in general). But again, nowhere in these words do we find that Scripture alone is to be listened to. Saying that you cannot add or take away from a text is not equivalent to saying the Scriptures alone are the infallible rule of faith.
I could go on and on with more examples, but it will suffice to say that there is nowhere in the entire Bible that teaches Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura thus collapses under the weight of its own claims and is a self-contradicting teaching, being evidently false.
On the contrary, there are many parts of the Bible that confirm the authority and usefulness of Tradition along with Scripture:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.”
Furthermore, the history of the Church coheres with a rejection of Sola Scriptura. We know historically that the Christian Church was around long before the writing and establishment of the New Testament canon; the Church has existed since the day of Pentecost in around 33 AD, while the New Testament texts would not be completed until nearly 100 AD. Thus we can be certain that the Bible did not establish the Church, but rather that the Church established the Bible.
Rejecting Sola Scriptura also coheres with my personal journey from Protestantism to Orthodoxy. As a child I was constantly reading and studying the Scriptures, yet I felt like there was still something I lacked in my studies. It was not until discovering Orthodoxy and the spiritual disciplines of the Church (fasting, saying the Jesus prayer, confession, the Eucharist, etc.) that I realized that the Bible was not meant to function alone, but rather in the context of the Church that could teach me how to properly read and apply it.
Therefore, in accordance with the Scriptures and church history, Orthodox Christians reject Sola Scriptura as an invented doctrine of men and accept the usefulness of the Church’s Tradition along with Scripture. I will leave you with a quote from St. Vincent of Lerins, a fifth century Irish monk who predicted and refuted Sola Scriptura before it existed:
But here someone perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another…lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
