Tanner Rotering

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura or “Scripture Alone” is one of the most controversial subject matters between the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Church and the Protestant Church.  Because the source from which one derives truth is the foundation of one’s belief system, the positions which these churches hold to concerning this issue determine their positions on countless other doctrines as well.  Thus, a correct understanding of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures is vitally important to every Christian, and, as a result, I feel it necessary to address the doctrine after the grossly inaccurate representation of the issue by my well-intentioned colleague, Mr. Hamilton.

Before delving into the heart of the issue, it would be beneficial to clear up a few things concerning the history of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  First of all, Martin Luther did not contrive the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as justification for his separation from the Roman Catholic Church as if he needed an excuse for his actions.  Instead, his belief in the principles of Sola Scriptura was actually one of the reasons why he was separated from the church in the first place.  He had realized the importance of relying solely upon God’s Word for truth long before he was separated from the Roman Catholic Church.  In addition, he did not choose to separate himself from the Roman Catholic Church, but instead he was forced out of it.  Luther actually wanted to reform the Roman Catholic Church from the inside, but he was not given the opportunity to do so, being excommunicated by the pope.  So instead of developing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in order to justify himself for his separation from the Roman Catholic Church, his adherence to it was one reason why he was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in the first place.

Next, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is in no way “repulsive” to the scriptures.  The scriptures clearly testify to their own authority.  Let us start with the Old Testament’s authenticity as the inspired word of God.  By the time of Jesus, the Old Testament had already been firmly established and accepted by the Jews as divine authority.  Michael J. Vlach, a Ph.D. in systematic theology, says in “How Did the Old Testament Become the Old Testament?” the following about the books of the Old Testament:

There are twenty-four books in the Hebrew canon.  These twenty-four books correspond exactly to the books in the English Protestant Bibles that numbers thirty-nine.  The difference is in the enumeration of the books.  (For example, the Hebrew Bible does not divide Samuel into 1 and 2 Samuel.  The same goes for the Kings.)

By the time of Jesus, all of the books of the Old Testament had already been compiled and agreed upon by the Jews.  They consisted of the very same books in our Bible today.  There are various reasons why we can know that they are all authoritative.  First of all, Jesus himself refers to the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which in turn correspond to the three divisions which the Jews divided the scriptures into: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Vlach).  In Luke 24:44 Jesus says, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”  Luke 11:49-51 is another instance where Jesus’ words indicate that the Jewish compilation of the Holy Scriptures was complete.  Jesus says,

Because of this, God in his wisdom said, “I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.”  Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary.  Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

Note that the murder of Abel and the murder of Zechariah are the first and the last murders recorded in the Old Testament, recorded in the first and last books of the Jewish Old Testament, Genesis and Chronicles (see Genesis 4:8 and 2 Chronicles 24:20-22) (Keller 134).  In addition, in John 5:39-40 Jesus says, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life.  These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

If Jesus knew that the Jews’ compilation of the Old Testament was faulty in some way, he likely would have told them so, but instead of telling them that their compilation was faulty, he tells them that the scriptures they study are the very scriptures that testify to him.  If they were not divinely inspired would Jesus have said that they testify to him?  Jesus does not refer to any errors in the Jews’ compilation in Matthew 5:17-18 when he declares,

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Not only is the Jewish Old Testament referenced as a whole, but, as Brian R. Keller says in his book Bible: God’s Inspired, Inerrant Word, “All the books of the Old Testament canon are in some way quoted or alluded to in the New Testament except for the books of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs” (137).

It is also evident from Scripture that the 39 books of the Old Testament we use today are the infallible word of God.  In 2 Peter 2:20-21 Simon Peter makes this very clear: “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.  For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

The Old Testament (and the Bible as a whole for that matter) is not simply the writings of men.  Scripture is inspired.  Or as Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed….”  Paul also confirms the divine origin of the Old Testament in Romans 3:2, when he says, “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?  Much in every way!  First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.”  Thus, it is evident from Scripture that we not only possess the appropriate compilation of the Old Testament books, but that they are also God’s word.

The 27 books of the New Testament as appear in the Protestant Bible are also the appropriate canonical books to be regarded as Holy Scripture.  They are not canonical because the Church declared them to be canonical.  God’s word does not rely upon the “Church Fathers” or anyone else to establish the truth of the Bible.  While it is true that the Church recognized the 27 books of the New Testament to be canonical, the church did not impart any authority to scripture nor did it gain any authority by recognizing it as scripture.  In fact, while we may look to the early Church Fathers for confirmation of what we believe, we should not look to them as anything greater than what they are: mere men.

So how can we be assured that the 27 books of the Bible are God’s word?  To start, the canon was based on the teaching of the apostles.  The apostles were those closest to Jesus, and they were promised the Holy Spirit.  In John 14:26, Jesus tells his apostles, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.”  Later in John 16:12-15, Jesus tells them,

 I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.  All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.

The letters of Paul, though not one of the twelve, also can be taken as Holy Scripture as 2 Peter 3:15 and 16 indicates.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.  He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.  His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Richard L. Gurgel in This We Believe notes that “Peter’s fascinating reference reveals that already while Peter was alive the letters of Paul were gathered and recognized as inspired portions of Holy Scripture.”  David Kuske in Biblical Interpretation: The Only Right Way notes that “[t]he apostles often reminded believers that their words were the spirit’s words” and “[t]he apostles indicated that the words they spoke were, therefore, on par with the Old Testament Scriptures.”

In 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 Paul states, “What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.  This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.”  Perhaps even more emphatic is 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.”

Gurgel also says the following about the New Testament canon.

The books of the New Testament come from the first generation of Christians- those who lived at the time of Jesus.  Our faith is founded on the teaching of the apostles themselves.  The long life of the apostle John also helps verify the list of books in the New Testament canon.  John lived to about A.D. 100 and was a reliable witness to the authenticity of any letters that claimed to be inspired apostolic writings.

There were doubts about the authenticity of some of the New Testament books during the time of the early church, specifically Hebrews, James, Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.  These books (along with those of the Old Testament books whose canonicity has been questioned) are referred to as the antilegomena, while those that were well established as canon were called homolegoumena.  The antilegomena were doubted usually either because of their content or their authorship (Kuske 33).  These doubts were put to rest by 300 a.d.

While the position of the early church concerning these antilegomena confirms the canonicity of these books, once again, this does not mean that the early church has any divine authority.  The early church simply lived closer to the times of the apostles; they were better able to verify the authenticity of the scriptures.  This does not mean that they created the canon, simply that they recognized it and were instrumental in sharing it with future generations.  This is a critical distinction.  Keller points out, “The chosen apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ either wrote or approved every book of the New Testament canon” (141).  Apostolicity is still the historical guiding factor because, as the Bible says, the apostles were divinely inspired.  Therefore, the Bible’s canonicity is still rooted in the Bible.

Yet, there is an even more crucial way in which we as Christians recognize the true canon of scripture.  Because the truly canonical books are truth from God, they are self-evident.  As the “Statement on Scripture,” in Doctrinal Statements of the WELS puts it, “The Canon, that is, the collection of books which is the authority for the Church, is not the creation of the Church.  Rather, the Canon has, by a quiet historical process which took place in the worship life of the Church, imposed itself upon the Church by virtue of its own divine authority.”  This statement seems like a very bold thing to say.  The books of the Bible proved themselves to be canonical?  While the church councils publically recognized the canonicity of the New Testament, the Bible had been showing itself to be canonical.

Hebrews 4:12 supports this idea, demonstrating the power of God’s word.  “For the word of God is alive and active.  Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

The authority of the Bible is demonstrated by the Bible itself.  The books themselves illustrate the reliability with which they can be accepted as God’s Word.  Romans 10:17 testifies to the power of God’s Word, saying, “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.”  Jeremiah 23:29 says, “‘Is not my word like fire,’ declares the LORD, ‘and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?’”  1 Peter 1:23 shows us that it is by God’s Word that we are born again: “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.”  Romans 1:16-17 confirms this idea as well:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.  For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed — a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

Thus it is evident that both the Old and New Testaments of the Protestant Bible are both canonical and divinely inspired.  Because the Bible is divinely inspired, it is one hundred percent true.  In John 17:17, Jesus prays to the Father “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.”  Proverbs 30:5 says, “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”  Numbers 23:19 says, “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.  Does he speak and then not act?  Does he promise and not fulfill?”  Furthermore, this canonicity and divine inspiration is evident from the Bible itself.  This is essentially to say that not only is the Bible completely authoritative, but also it is completely authoritative of its own merit; the word of God does not need any external authority to establish its authenticity.  The Holy Scriptures verify their own authority.

The Word of God is infallible, but is it possible that any other source has equal or greater authority?  The answer from the Bible is a resounding “NO!”  How could anything be as or more authoritative than God’s Word?  Isaiah 8:20 illustrates the insufficiency of any other source.  “Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning.  If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.”  The Bereans of the New Testament recognized this fact.  Acts 17:11 says, “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”  The Scriptures are completely sufficient as well.  We know that it is sufficient because it contains all that we need to know concerning salvation.  As Keller points out, “John 20:31 explains why we have the words of Scripture.”  John 20:30-31 say, “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.  But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”  As shown previously in Romans 10:17 and Romans 1:16-17, faith comes from hearing the gospel.  The Scriptures are the only source we possess where we can read God’s Word, therefore only Scripture ought to be looked to for doctrinal truth.

Keller makes this point blatantly clear.

No one has the right to add to God’s Word.  No one has the right to subtract from God’s Word.  No one has the right to change the meaning of God’s Word in any way.  That is the case for every pastor, teacher, or layperson.  That is the case for the pope too.  It is wrong to add human ideas or traditions to the Bible and consider them God’s Word.  It is wrong to try to brush certain teachings of Scripture under the rug because they are not very popular today.

Keller then goes on to point out two more key verses concerning this idea.  Deuteronomy 4:2 says, “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.”  Galatians 1:8 says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

Now we come to the issue of “tradition.”  Mr. Hamilton does well to make the distinction between the tradition of God and the tradition of men.  On that point I most heartily agree with him.  Our interpretations of what those traditions are and what their implications are for us are the real points of contention.  The “apostolic traditions” referred to in Mr. Hamilton’s two key support passages, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and I Corinthians 11:2, are simply the gospel teachings.  As R. C. H. Lenski says concerning Second Thessalonians 2:15’s use of the Greek word for “tradition,”

The use of paradoseis does not contain something rabbinic, for this term is used in the Gospels and also by Paul in Gal. 1:14 and Col. 2:8 to denote Jewish and human “traditions.”  Here and in 3:6 and in I Cor. 11:2 the word = the gospel teachings, “truth” (v. 13), “the truth” (v. 10, 12), the plural to indicate the different parts of the gospel truth.  The word itself points only to transmission: the things given or handed over from teacher to pupil.  Romanists have appropriated it and refer it to teachings handed down in the church and not recorded in the Scriptures; but this late Romanish use has nothing to do with Paul’s use.  In I Cor. 11:2 Paul also has the corresponding verb (443).

 The NIV translation makes this point more clear.  It reads, “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”  The written teachings passed on to the Thessalonians (i.e. the letters) are Holy Scripture, and the teachings delivered by the word of mouth most definitely were in agreement with their letters.  Thus these passages in no way refute the weight with which Christians recognize the Holy Scriptures as having.  Even if one was to claim the possibility that some additional teachings were issued by the apostles’ word of mouth besides that which is recorded in scripture, there is no way that we can know what these doctrines are since they were not recorded.  If they had been recorded and shown to be authentic, they would have been recognized as scripture, but the early church recognized no such writings as divinely inspired except that which they included in the canon.  Some may claim that they were passed on by oral tradition and recorded later, but there is no way to verify the accuracy/authenticity of these oral transmissions.  Therefore, we must still adhere to Sola Scriptura.

Let me again clarify.  I am not denying that the traditions (i.e. the teachings) of the apostles were not divinely inspired.  No, in fact, I agree that the teachings of the apostles were divinely inspired.  As demonstrated earlier in this article when discussing the criteria of Apostolicism for canonicity, the Holy Spirit spoke through the apostles.  What I am saying is that the apostles taught the same gospel both in their letters and in their word of mouth, and that we only have access to the written teachings of the apostles (the Bible).  The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not deny that there is truth that is not recorded in the Bible (like in some of the Apostles’ oral dissertations); it only says that Scripture is the only inerrant, authoritative, doctrinally foundational source of truth that we have access to, and that it is completely sufficient.

Whenever discussing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura another point of contention that almost invariably arises is the authority of the Church.  What type of authority does the church have and what type does it not?  Is the decree of the visible church infallible?  If so, which visible church is infallible?  What are the powers and responsibilities given to the Church?  All of these are relevant questions when addressing the relationship between the church and scripture.

Let us review the distinction between the visible and invisible church.  The invisible church is comprised of all believers, while the visible church is comprised of all who confess to be believers.  The term “invisible church” refers to what we generally think of as the Church.  The invisible church is “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession” (1 Peter 2:9).  It is comprised of the “family of believers” (Galatians 6:10).  It is Christ’s body (Ephesians 1:23) and “God’s household” (1 Timothy 3:15).  Galatians 3:26-27 says, “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”  Romans 11:20 clearly shows you must have faith to be in the invisible Church.  Ephesians 4:3-6 puts special emphasis on the unity of this invisible church: “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.  There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;  one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

“Why do we call all believers in Christ the invisible church?” you may wonder.  We call it invisible because man, unlike God, cannot judge the heart.  No one can definitively ascertain whether anyone else is a believer or not.  While it is true that all faith should invariably lead to good works or “fruit” as the Bible tells us, this still does not mean man has the ability to judge who is saved and who is not.  Luke 17:20-21 says, “Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, ‘The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, “Here it is,” or “There it is,” because the kingdom of God is in your midst.’”  Note that an alternate translation for “is in your midst” for this passage is “is within you.”  The reason we call the body of all believers the invisible church is simple.  Edward W.A. Koehler in A Summary of Christian Doctrine says, “Because faith, by which men become members of the Church, is invisible to human eyes, therefore the Church itself is invisible to man” (239).

It is important to mark the distinction between the invisible church and the visible church.  Koehler says, “Briefly stated: The invisible Church is the total number of those who HAVE true faith in their hearts; the visible Church is the total number of those who PROFESS the faith.  The invisible Church is hidden in the visible church.”  Koehler also notes,

The faith, by which men are members of the Church, is itself invisible (Luke 17:20.21) but it manifests itself in various ways.  All true believers will confess their faith; “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10); (Matt. 10:32).  They will also prove their faith by a godly life, letting their light shine before men, that they may see their good works and glorify their Father in heaven (Matt. 5:16).  They will nurse their spiritual life by making diligent use of the means of grace; “he that is of God heareth God’s Word” (John 8:47); (1 Cor. 11:26).  Thus by their confession of faith, by their godly life, by their attendance upon public worship the believers become recognizable to others; these things are the outward evidence of their invisible faith.…  The total number of those people whom we must regard, on the basis of their confession in word and deed, as Christians, constitute the visible Church (244, 245).

There are many organizations which form the visible church, which we refer to as churches or sometimes as denominations.  While we refer to these as churches, many of these are not true churches since they do not teach only true biblical doctrines.  As James F. Korthals writes in his article “The visible church” in the January 2009 issue of Forward In Christ, “A true visible church is one that not only knows the truth but also proclaims the truth of God’s Word in its entirety.”  It is important to recognize, however, that this does not mean that no one within one of these heterodox visible churches is a member of the invisible church.  Nor does it mean that everyone within a true visible church is a member of the invisible church.  Koehler summarizes this relationship between the visible and invisible church very poignantly.

The invisible Church is the only saving Church.  Since faith in the vicarious atonement of Christ is the only thing that saves (John 3:16), and since the Church embraces all those who have this faith, it is apparent that membership in this Church saves.  Whoever rejects the faith, by which one is a member of this Church, cannot find salvation in any other religion.  It is not true that every one is saved in his own fashion, no matter what his faith may be.  Christ says: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6).  However, no visible church body, or denomination, may claim that it is the only saving church, as the Romish Church does.…  According to the Bible teaching “no salvation outside of the Church” applies to the invisible Church alone (241).

It is evident that the visible church can be further subdivided into true and false (or orthodox and heterodox) churches as well.  In addition, the New Testament warns us of false teachers and deceivers.

Considering what we know about the visible and the invisible church, what can we say about the authority of the church?  As Mr. Hamilton points out, 1 Timothy 3:15 says, “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”  Does it then follow that “the Orthodox Catholic Church” can “define the revealed truth”?  Of course not!  First, we must ask ourselves whether “church” here means the visible or the invisible church.  It is clear that we could not consider heretics and false teachers to be part of the pillar and ground of truth, therefore we must assume that the church being referred to is the invisible church, the body of believers, the body of Christ.  While it is true that these true believers are part of the visible church, they are not the only ones within the visible church, and therefore the visible church as a whole is not the pillar and ground of truth.  R. C. H. Lenski says the following about the meaning of the Greek concerning the word “household” in 1 Timothy 3:15.  “Οἶκοs = ἐκκλησία = not the family in a house but the ‘assembly,’ the church members themselves.  They are this ‘house,’ which is called ‘house’ because God dwells in them.  This is one of the many beautiful expressions for the unio mystica, in this case it is collective with the reference to the church” (606).  Thus this is not a reference to any church body but rather the church as the body of believers.  It is not “the Orthodox Catholic Church” that is the pillar and foundation of truth, but rather all believers.

Next we must consider what it means that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.  It does not mean that the church is given the authority to establish what God’s word means in some form of divinely ordained privilege to give life and meaning to the scriptures.  The Church has no authority over Scripture; rather the Scriptures are the guide for the Church.  Each and every member of the church is able to understand and believe in Scripture because of the Holy Spirit’s work in his or her heart.  First Corinthians 2:13-16 says,

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.  The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.  The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”  But we have the mind of Christ.

Likewise, in John 8:47, Jesus says, “Whoever belongs to God hears what God says.  The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”  The gospel is that truth of which the church is the pillar and foundation, and we find that gospel in the Scriptures.  Lenski says,

 The gospel = “the truth.”  As ἀλήθεια, “reality,” this truth exists independently and is dependent on no pillar, foundation, or other kind of support.  Every reality, and above all this eternal one, is simply there, and that is all.  Yet this Gospel truth which God sent into the world is not just there to be there, i.e., in existence; it is to save men, and thus men it has saved, the living God’s church, bear it as a pillar, yea as a foundation bears its superstructure.  The church thus bears God’s saving truth for all the world.

Because believers are able to believe and understand God’s word through the work of the Holy Spirit, they have the responsibility to study, apply, guard, and spread this news.  In this sense they are the pillar and foundation of the truth.  The Church has no authority to establish the meaning of the Scriptures; it simply has the ability to correctly interpret them, but only because of the Holy Spirit.  It has the authority to teach, but only that which is rooted in Scripture because God’s word is the ultimate authority.

The Church has no authority to teach anything except that found in scripture.  1 Timothy 6:3-4a says, “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing.”  The Church has no authority to claim anything but what the Bible teaches.  Everything else would be such “traditions of men” (cf. Matthew 15:1-9).  Jeremiah 23:30-32 says,

“Therefore,” declares the Lord, “I am against the prophets who steal from one another words supposedly from me.  Yes,” declares the Lord, “I am against the prophets who wag their own tongues and yet declare, ‘The Lord declares.’  Indeed, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,” declares the Lord.  “They tell them and lead my people astray with their reckless lies, yet I did not send or appoint them.  They do not benefit these people in the least,” declares the Lord.

No one, not even church leaders such as pastors or priests have the authority to teach anything except what is found in Scripture.  These leaders derive their authority only from Scripture.  They have no authority of their own (Koehler 254).

In fact, there is no such thing as the “Apostolic Priesthood.”  Koehler notes that “[t]he keys of the Kingdom were not given to Peter alone (Matt. 16:19), but to the Church (Matt. 18:18).  Peter never claimed primacy or lordship over the Church for himself (1 Peter 5:3); he calls himself just “an apostle” “also an elder” like the others (1 Pet. 1:1; 5:1)” (254, 255).  It is interesting to note that Mr. Hamilton makes reference to Matthew 18:18 as a proof passage showing that Jesus gave the keys to the Apostles, but if you read the chapter in context, it does not specify “the twelve” nor does it use any other terminology that would imply that this is being addressed only to the twelve apostles.  Instead, verse 1 only refers to the disciples which could include anyone who was following Jesus (which included more than just the twelve apostles).  Koehler says,

A comparison of [Matt. 16:19] with Matt.18:18 clearly shows that the power to bind and to loose is given to the church or the local congregation.…  In the case of the incestuous person at Corinth, action was taken by the congregation (1Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 2:6-10).  Although hypocrites within the congregation externally participate in the exercise of this power, they do not share in the right of possessing it, since it properly belongs to those only who have received the Holy Ghost (John 20:22-23), and who by faith are the royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9) (255-256).

Mr. Hamilton uses Acts 1:20 as a support passage for the “Apostolic Priesthood” as if the passage somehow supports the continual selection of successors for the Apostles.  It is evident from the context of the passage, however, that this passage is referring only to the replacement of Judas.  Peter himself notes that “the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas” and not about every apostle.  The fact that this reference is referring only to the replacement of Judas is made even more abundantly clear in verses 21-22 where Paul notes the purpose/criteria of this replacement: “Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.  For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”  In addition to the fact that nowhere in Scripture is a continual replacement or succession of the Apostles ever mentioned, no one would be able to meet the criteria of being a witness to Jesus’ resurrection as was the case in Judas’ replacement for very long.

Finally, Titus 1:5 is even less of an appropriate support passage than Acts 1:20.  That elders were to be appointed does not mean that these elders were successors of the apostles or that they were infallible.  Koehler notes, “The prophets and apostles are infallible teachers of the Church, because they spake under the inspiration of God (Eph. 2:20; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 Corinthian 2:13)” (255).  Our religious leaders, on the other hand are not.

I would like to bring up one final point concerning the alleged “Apostolic Priesthood.”  Though Mr. Hamilton does not present this specific argument, many will claim that Matthew 16:18 supports such an “Apostolic Priesthood” because of Jesus’ words, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”  The “rock” which Jesus states that he will build his church on is not Peter.  The word for Peter used in the Greek is Petros, while the word used for the rock upon which Christ will build his church is petra.  Despite what the Catholic Church may have believed the Greek to have indicated, two distinct words are used in this passage, and the rock upon which Jesus said he would build His church is actually the confession made by Peter in verse 16: “Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’”  Thus the theory of the “Apostolic Priesthood” can hardly be considered scriptural and we must again conclude that the only authority for Christian doctrine is Scripture.

Some will claim that this concept of the sufficiency of Scripture is a relatively new idea that began with the Reformation.  In reality, however, even the early Church Fathers recognized this foundational principle of the Christian faith.  Gregory L. Jackson, in Catholic/ Lutheran/ Protestant: A Doctrinal Comparison of the Three Christian Confessions, provides several quotations from the early Church Fathers.  He says, “The tactic of arguing for the insufficiency of Scripture (and therefore the necessity of another source, whether it be the book of Mormon or Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health) is old rather than new, and countered long ago.”  He provides the following excerpt from the writings of Irenaeus.

When they are proved wrong from the Scriptures, they turn and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not correct and were without authority, both because they speak now one way, now another, and also because the truth cannot be found from Scripture by those who do not know the traditions; for (so they say) the truth was not given through the epistles, but through the living voice, etc.

Jackson also provides a quotation from St. Augustine:

If you believe the report about Christ, see whether this is a proper witness; consider what disaster you are headed for.  You reject the Scriptures which are confirmed and commended by such great authority; you perform no miracles, and if you performed any, we would shun even those in your case according to the Lord’s instruction Mt. 24:24.  He wanted absolutely nothing to be believed against the confirmed authority of the Scriptures, etc.

Some will claim, in spite of such quotations, that the early Church Fathers actually promoted the Orthodox/Catholic idea of Apostolic Tradition.  While it is true that the early Church Fathers did adhere to a form of Apostolic Tradition, it is very different from the form advocated by the Orthodox and the Catholic theologians.  The “Apostolic Tradition” was simply the teachings found in Scripture.  Thus the “Apostolic Tradition” of the early church was actually in support of the sufficiency of Scripture.  Irenaeus said: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

William Webster explains the truth of the matter:

The word tradition simply means teaching.  Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.  Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches.  From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture.  There was no doctrine in what they refer to as Apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.  In other words, the Apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture.

Webster also quotes Church historian Ellen Flessman-van Leer from Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church.

For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible.

There are many other quotations from by the Church Fathers affirming the fact that the early church relied solely upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures.  St. Athanasius said, “The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”  St. Gregory of Nyssa affirmed the importance of every doctrine being in compliance with Scripture when he says, “Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”  He also said “we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please.  For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine.  Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.”

St. Augustine of Hippo is also in agreement with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura saying,

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem declared,

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech.  Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures.  For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

St. John Chrysostom said, “Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast,” and also, “They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way.  But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err.  I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.”

St. Basil is yet another early Church Father who confirmed the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  He also makes the place of the “traditions of the fathers” clear saying, “We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.  What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”  The fact that only doctrines from scripture ought to be taught is also made clear in this quotation from St. Basil.

What is the mark of a faithful soul?  To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions.  For, if “all that is not of faith is sin” as the Apostle says, and “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,” everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin (all quotations in this section taken from Angelfire).

Though the testimony of the early Church Fathers should not be considered as divinely inspired or authoritative, the fact that they recognized that the Scriptures ought to be recognized as the only authoritative source of Christian doctrine is supportive of the fact that the doctrine of Sola Scripture has been around since the earliest years of the church even if the doctrine was not referred to as “Sola Scriptura.”  After all, it is clearly supported by the Bible.

The emphasis on the doctrinal principles of “Scripture Alone,” though largely neglected by the Catholic Church, soon blossomed in mainstream Christianity with the advent of the Reformers.  The fact that Sola Scriptura was neglected by the majority of professing Christians during the height of Catholicism, however, in no way reduces the authority of the doctrine.  Jesus said in Matthew 24:24, “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”  We can be assured, however, that the gates of Hell will never prevail over the church.  Matthew 16:18 says, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”  Some will say that because the gates of Hell will not overcome the church, Protestants cannot hope to justify their beliefs, drawing attention to the extended period of time between the early church and the Protestant Reformation.  In other words, these people construct an argument that follows the general logic chain “because there can never be a time when the church is nonexistent, and because the protestant church was nonexistent during the Middle Ages, the Protestant church cannot be the true church.”  There are several major flaws in this line of argumentation, however.

First of all, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the two usages of the word “church.”  There is both the visible church and the invisible church, as discussed previously.  Therefore, despite the fact that there may have not been an orthodox visible church during the Middle Ages, it is not then true that the invisible church was therefore nonexistent during this time period as well.  Even if not a single completely correctly teaching visible church existed during the Middle Ages, this does not mean that believers were not present.  Romans 11:1-6 presents an outstanding example of a time when, despite what the situation appeared to be, God had preserved a remnant.

I ask then: Did God reject his people?  By no means!  I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.  God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.  Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah — how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”?  And what was God’s answer to him?  “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”  So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.  And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Secondly, we know from Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hell will not overcome the church, and thus that the invisible church will always exist, but scripture does not say that there will always be perfect doctrinal understanding within this body of believers.  Thus, even if there were periods of time where no believers accepted doctrines like Sola Scriptura, that does not then necessitate that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine.  Because it is possible to be a believer but not believe in Sola Scriptura, this doctrine may have not been held by anyone during the Middle Ages, but this does not mean that there were not any believers during this time.  Thus the truth that the gates of Hell will never overcome the church is still compatible with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Some also argue Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory because it is not found in the Bible.  While it is true that the Bible does not say the words “Scripture Alone,” it is clearly a biblical principle as illustrated above, and thus not self-contradictory.  Just as Christians believe that there is one God in three (and only three) persons even though the Bible does not say the word “Trinity” or “there are only three persons in the Trinity” because such a doctrine is scripturally supported, so we also believe that there is only one source of God’s Word we can use for doctrinal truth.

In conclusion, because the Holy Scripture (the canonical sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible) is God’s word, and because God’s Word is inerrant, the Holy Scripture is one hundred percent accurate.  In addition, because the Holy Scripture is the only divinely-inspired source God has given to us, we must rely solely on the scripture for doctrinal issues.  This doctrine is clearly supported by the scriptures themselves.  The church is only authoritative insofar as its teachings are based upon scripture.  If they are not in congruence with scripture, they are nothing.  Thus, Christians ought to affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in order to avoid the many snares and pitfalls the world sets up against us.  It should be a comfort to Christians to know the Bible is completely sufficient, and we have all that is necessary for salvation.  Let us never forget the significance of the words of Psalm 119:105: “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (KJV).