Basic Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

The title says it all.  If you're struggling with the basics of how to present Orthodox views on theology with a Protestant, here are a few of the basic ways to argue against Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura comes in a variety of forms, but ultimately teaches (in all its forms) that Scripture should form not only the core of how Christians "do" theology, but indeed should be the sole input into that theology.  This gets presented in different ways, which I'll label "prima scriptura," "sola scriptura" and "solo scriptura"

Prima Scriptura: The scriptures should provide the highest norm against which theology is checked.  They have a veto power over any theology, though other sources may produce theology.  Things not explicitly forbidden in Scripture are probably ok provided they fit within the general theology of Christianity.

Sola Scriptura: Scripture is the sole content of theology when properly harmonized with itself.  Theology that is not directly traceable to Scripture should be denied.  It is ok for things that are direct implications of Scripture to be believed and practiced, and it is ok for non-theological practices (i.e. style of music) to change.

Solo Scriputura: Scripture is the sole content of theology and ONLY those practices specifically COMMANDED or permitted by Scripture ought to be practiced by the Church.  Nothing else; nothing less.


Let's start with Prima Scriptura.  Honestly, this one isn't that far from Orthodoxy - and that's my favorite place to go with the teaching. 

If someone says that we should let Scripture have veto power over doctrines, I just rephrase it in an Orthodox way: "So, we shouldn't let any doctrine directly contradict Scripture?  I agree."  Why?  Because no doctrine should contradict any other.  It isn't that we want to use tradition to overrule scripture, but that we see tradition as providing a correct interpretation OF scripture.  Notice the example of the Eucharistic debates a few posts ago.

But, having dealt with the basic claim, I ask for their justifications.  Remember this - always remember this: the onus of proof is on the one demanding sola scriptura.  Why?  Becuase, at the out-set, it doesn't seem that God limited His revelation to Scripture alone in history.  More on this later.  But if someone approaches me, when I've encountered God's teachings in so many settings, and tells me that I ought to check each of those against the scriptures ALONE (and not against, say, the scriptures and creed, or scriptures, creed and liturgy) I think I can ask "Why?  Why Scripture alone?"

The most typical, first instinct answer is: "Because it is God's infallible word."  To which I reply: "Why is it, alone, God's infallible word?  Isn't truth truth regardless of where it is found?"  Merely throwing back that the Scriptures are "true" does not, in any way, eliminate the possibility of other things (like the creed) being true as well.

Some, if they are very, very traditional protestants (hehe) will say: "Because the Scriptures have clear, plain meaning whereas traditions are complex and multifaceted."  To this, there are three very easy replies:
1) the creed is more straightforward still - so by this logic we should be sola-creedum

2) the scriptures, as evidenced by the degree of disagreement between protestants, are not at all clear or obvious in their meaning.

3) "ease of understanding" does not seem like a reliable criterion for "true."  That the sun is the chariot of the god Apollo crossing the sky is easier to understand than the physics of a fusion reaction - but we know the more complex answer to be the correct one.  A clear speaker can be wrong, and a confusing one can be right.

These three points being valid, a protestant may turn towards either scoffing at the points (dismissing them as not genuinely addressing his or her point) or, more commonly, they'll turn to scripture.

Generally, the scriptural case for prima, sola, or solo scriptura depends on two things:
1) Sloppy exegesis of II Timothy 3:15-16
2) Several passages seemingly disparaging tradition
3) Willfully ignoring several passages praising the Church and tradition (or re-interpreting these to not refer to a real, physical church or consigning apostolic tradition to "the Scriptures," which is circular argumentation)

The famous passage of II Timothy "all Scripture is God breathed..." (3:15-16) never says that ONLY scripture can make us complete.  Aside from needing a great many other things (faith, God's grace, Christ's Incarnation and Passion and Resurrection, etc.) in addition to Scripture to make us complete in every good work of God, the passage also assumes a correct interpretation of Scripture which no purely sola-scriptura system could create.  Furthermore, the whole surrounding context emphasizes one thing: the Scriptures could make Timothy complete in God precisely because Timothy had been taught by Paul.  Timothy's reception of the tradition (of being handed teachings by a prior generation) was what enabled him to understand and gain benefit from the Scriptures.

We see this same idea at work in another of St. Paul's letters (to the Corinthians) where he speaks of a veil being over the eyes of the Jews (since they reject Christ - that is, the Christian traditions about Jesus as the Messiah) such that they cannot read their own Scriptures correctly.  The Jews had the same Tanakh (Old Testament) as the Christians, but everything hinged on the tradition - on the starting point from which one read those Scriptures.  The Christians started from Christ - from the Incarnate, Resurrected Lord.  Without that correct teaching, the Tanakh would not reveal its inner truth.

Even the famous passage about the Berreans (in Acts), who checked the Apostolic teaching against the Scriptures, confirms this.  FIRST, they were taught the Apostolic teaching (they recieved the tradition) THEN they were able to read the Scriptures and see the truth contained in them.  They did not just open the Scriptures and COME UP WITH the Apostolic truth.  That's the interpretation one would need in order for this story to support sola or solo scriptura.  It does support prima scriptura (in the sense that no doctrine should openly contradict Scripture), but, as stated above, the Orthodox don't really disagree with that idea since we don't think doctrine (no matter where it is found) can contradict itself.

The other passages, the ones denying tradition, are frequently quoted out of context and actually constitute the best arguments AGAINST sola-scriptura.  They are from passages of the Gospels where Christ condemns the Pharisees for using man-made tradition to contradict the words of God.  The emphasis is on the man-made nature of the tradition, not the fact that it IS tradition.  Indeed, if the passages were interpreted the way that Protestants want to apply them (in defense of sola scriptura) then we'd have to exclude the New Testament as the "word" to which Christ was referring could (at that time) have only referred to the Old Testament.  The New Testament hadn't been written yet.

Other passages of Scripture (Thessalonians, for example) reference tradition in a positive light.  Others call the Church the pillar and ground of the truth.  Others warn us about "private interpretations of the Scriptures" that can "twist" us.  Taken as a whole, the Scriptures do not seem to teach AGAINST tradition, but rather against FALSE tradition (man-made).

And this is where the debate turns towards grounds the Orthodox feel quite comfortable on.  Historically speaking, sola and solo scriptura are inventions of a quite-late period of time.  They are, in other words, man-made traditions.

And this is what it amounts to: sola-scriptura (even prima-scriptura) are themselves traditions.  It is a tradition telling me not to use traditions.  It's just a contradiction in its entirety.

If prima-scriptura, then, cannot be upheld then sola and solo fall as well (as prima scriptura is the least demanding of the three).  But sola and solo scriptura (and prima, to a lesser extent) fall to another argument most readily: they cannot determine what scriptures to "sola."

By the 16th c Protestant Reformation, the Scripture seemed a fairly static thing.  Luther did change that (rejecting the deutero-canonical books from the Old Testament and, according to popular myth, questioning the validity of James in the New Testament).  That was part of the appeal: we all agree on these books, so they make sense as a norm.  Incidently, we all agree (excepting one word) with the creed - so once again, sola-creedum looks superior to sola-scriptura if we use sola-scriptura's own argumentation.

Yet this was not always so.  If I ask a Protestant how they know what books are in the Scriptures I typically get one of three answers:
1) The ones inspired by the Holy Spirit (and this includes the process of their selection as Scripture)
2) The ones that are self-evidently Scripture based on the veracity of their content
3) The traditional books of Scripture... but we all agree, so it doesn't matter.

The first one turns immediately against all three forms of sola scriptura.  The historical process by which the Holy Spirit chose to declare these books as Scripture involved bishops, church councils, and centuries of traditional use by the Church.  Sola and solo scriptura immediately cannot sustain themselves in the face of that fact.  There is no means, from within Scripture, to justify the list of books called 'Scripture.'  Yet that is certainly a THEOLOGICAL doctrine - and sola and solo scriptura both need to, by their own ideology, justify that theoogical doctrine using scripture.

That's an inescapable double-bind.

Prima scriptura often then turns to option three (limited use of tradition so long as it doesn't contradict scripture).  Given that Scripture is supposed to be the norm by which we judge traditions, though, this seems to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.  IF we're willing to accept traditional lists of Scripture, then why not also accept traditional interpretations OF those Scriptures?  The creed dates from the same time period and provides an excellent bound from within which to interpret the Scriptures.  Similarly, the writings of the saints (defending and explicating the creed, addressing additional controversies at that time, interpreting the Scriptures) would seem highly useful.  Prima Scriptura isn't, per say, against these things, but wants to normalize them against "the Scriptures."  Yet it cannot address WHICH Scriptures without appealing to the tradition... and round we go in circles.

So again, I'll ask this: if the Holy Spirit could inspire a council to produce a canon of Scripture, why couldn't that same Holy Spirit inspire the creed (as a rule for interpreting the Scriptures) at the SAME COUNCIL?  That's how it went down historically.  If they accept the creed, though, they are no longer sola scriptura or prima scriptura.  Indeed, what prima scriptura really amounts to is saying that all these elements of tradition (including the writing of the saints) should be normalized against MY BEST ATTEMPT at interpreting the Scriptures. 

So we have to ask: to whom should I, as an Orthodox Christian, listen to?  A contemporary Lutheran interpreting the Scriptures thousands of years after their composition in a different language and cultural context who has not yet finished the race or fought the good fight?  Or the saints of old who, speaking the same language and living in the same (or very similar culture) endured to the end and now reside with God in paradise awaiting the second coming of Christ?  Clearly, I use the tradition.

Which brings us to option two for justifying the canon of Scripture: self-authentication.  This, I really like.  Why?  Because then I can make all kinds of things Scripture (including the creed - which is self-evidently true; or the liturgy, or a well-written icon, or a given passage from the fathers).  Indeed, this IS the reason certain books are Scripture - but it is a reason providing no good grounds for rejecting the deutero-canon of the Old Testament and no good grounds for rejecting the bulk of tradition (as that same truth is enshrined in that same tradition).  Option two, taken to its logical conclusion, is Orthodoxy.

So there you have it.  Sola Scriptura in all its forms has the following issues:
1) Lack of logical warrant
2) Lack of Scriptural warrant (ironically)
3) Denies the Scriptural reality of the Church / tradition
4) It is a late-developing tradition of men
5) Cannot justify its own Scriptures

Protestants have replies to most of those - but that gives you the basics.

In Christ,
Macarius