The Bible Does Not Teach “Sola Scriptura”

In this talk, I’d like to share a response to the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura, or the Protestant idea that everything necessary for the Christian life must be present in Sacred Scripture, or must be proven from Sacred Scripture and from scripture alone. Any time that Protestants and Catholics attempt to speak to each other, this issue of authority is obviously central to the discussion. The Protestant position that Christian doctrine comes only from Sacred Scripture, I will argue in this talk, is not only impossible to prove, but it’s contrary to what the Scriptures actually say. I’m going to show in this talk that the verses that Protestants quote to support this idea don’t even teach what they seem to imagine that they teach.

And I’m going to argue that there is a veil over the eyes, the minds, the hearts of Protestants that prevents them from seeing the truth of the Catholic faith. And what that veil is, is a spirit of division. In Second Corinthians, St. Paul wrote to this day, speaking in the first century, whenever Moses is read by the Jews, that is, he says there is a veil upon their heart, there’s a veil upon their heart which prevents them, he explains, from seeing Christ in the Old Testament, in the writings of Moses. And Paul says, when they shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. And I will argue that there is a similar veil upon the hearts of Protestant men and women, which prevents them from seeing the church in Sacred Scripture and when they shall be converted to the Lord, this veil shall be taken away.

If you’re to ask, what is this veil? I’ll point you to Proverbs, Chapter 18. In the first verse of Proverbs 18, we read this: He that hath a mind to depart from a friend seeketh occasions. He that hath a mind to depart from a friend seeketh occasions. What that means is that events don’t cause a person to depart from a friend. Occasions are used as excuses to depart from a friend, and I’ll argue that when Protestants read the scriptures, they do so with an intention to oppose and reject the ancient church. They do so looking for excuses to depart from a friend. They are improperly disposed towards the church, and they read the scriptures in a way where they look for excuses in passages that don’t actually cause them to leave the church or cause them to separate from the church, but are good enough to justify departing from the church because they have a mind to do so.

And I’d like for Protestants, and there can be no doubt that in history, in history beginning in the 1500s, Protestants separated themselves from the ancient church and caused a division in the Christian church. Caused a division among Christians. And I’d like to read the prayer of our Lord in John chapter 17, so that we can all understand how important it is to end this division. If you love Christ, if you want to love Christ, who suffered for us, this division between Protestants and Catholics has to end, and the only way that it can end is for Protestants to return to the ancient church.

Our Lord prayed: Holy Father, keep them in thy name that they may be one as we also are one. The glory which You have given me, I have given to them that they may be one as we also are one. I in them and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one, that the world may know that you have sent me, that the world may know that thou hast sent me.

So this is not an academic disputation. This is not some cute debate. This is a question that is so important that it relates to the will of Christ and the whole purpose of His redemptive work. It was his will that his disciples be one, and he says that the effect of the unity of his disciples is that the world may know that God sent him. The unity of Christians is the sign that God did, in fact, send Christ into the world.

So let’s consider this topic not with some kind of academic arrogance or as if it’s some kind of sport. Let’s realize that this really relates to the Gospel itself, to the whole purpose for which Christ came into the world. And let’s understand that this unity among Christians is what Christ literally prayed for while He was on earth working for our salvation.

Now, before we can get started with this question of sola scriptura, it’s really important for us to establish some context, because when Protestants read the scriptures and interpret them in ways that justify separating from the ancient Catholic Church, they often don’t take chronology or context into consideration. Much of what they say, and I’m going to demonstrate this by looking at a number of passages that are regularly used by Protestants to criticize Catholicism, what they say is chronologically or historically impossible. The arguments don’t even make any sense. The interpretations of the passages of Scripture are not even possible, so let’s just discuss briefly the chronology of the first century of the church and the writing of the New Testament.

First of all, our Lord was crucified, died, was buried and rose from the dead around 33 AD, so everything that we read of or know of the life of our Lord took place historically before 33 AD. The events that followed our Lord’s glorification, which included the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which essentially started the church age, took place after 33 AD. The events that we read about in the New Testament in the book of Acts took place after 33 AD, but they were written of later. The book of Acts was written later. In fact, it’s estimated that the book of Acts was written sometime after 60-62 AD, so the book of Acts was written years after those events in the opening chapters of the book of Acts actually took place.

And so there are two different things going on, two different streams of activity that we’ve always got to keep in mind as we think about the early church. First of all, there’s the church actually living and acting in the world. What’s actually going on on the ground in the church that’s starting in 33 AD. The second stream of activity is what’s being written, the actual writing of the New Testament scriptures that is going on separately from the activity of the apostles in the first century. Much of what we know about the activity of the apostles in the life of the early church comes from writings that were published years later, decades later, after the events were actually done.

So let’s remember, let’s always keep these chronologies clear. There are two different streams of activity: the actual deeds of the apostles, the actual events in the history of the Church on the ground, in the living church, and the writing of those events, the writing about those events in the New Testament Scriptures. The writing of the New Testament scriptures really begins around 50 or between 50 and 52 AD, so for 17 years or so there are no New Testament writings at all.

First and Second Thessalonians, written by St. Paul, are believed to be the first New Testament texts written, and then First and Second Corinthians, Galatians and Romans followed them four or five years later. So between 50 and 57 we’ve got many of St. Paul’s epistles written. They’re actually the earliest of the New Testament writings. That affects how they’re to be understood and interpreted. His other epistles, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon were written after 60 AD, close to the end of his life.

The first gospel that we have, the Gospel of Matthew, was not written until after 60 AD. So during the first 30 years of the history of the church, no one was sitting around reading the Gospel of Matthew. The gospel of Luke, of St. Luke, was written after the Gospel of St. Matthew. Matthew was one of the original 12 Apostles. Luke was a companion of St. Paul. So again, for the first 30 years of the actual activity in the church, on the ground, no one was reading any New Testament writings. They weren’t even in existence yet. The Gospels of these evangelists were not yet composed, not until 60.

The Epistle of St. James was written sometime after 62 AD. Between 64 and 67 AD, Saints Peter and Paul were put to death in Rome, so their lives were ended before 70 AD within 30 years after the founding of the church. It was at the end of Paul’s life that he wrote his epistles to Timothy and Titus. And that makes sense when a man who’s heading towards the end of his life, and Paul knew that he writes about it in his epistles, was writing instructions to men that he himself had ordained, that he knew would be his successors. And so we find those letters to first and second Timothy, first and second Timothy and Titus written near the time of Paul’s death. The Gospel of Mark was written after 65 AD, and then the catastrophic event that really marks, or that serves really as the date post, which is used to establish all of these other dates, is the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, when the whole Jewish worship system, the temple, everything is pulled down to the ground and destroyed and remains in ruins. To this day, there is no more temple, there is no more priesthood. There is no more Jewish sacrificial system. There is no more Mosaic Jewish religion practiced in the world, and that was because of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, again, within 40 years of the founding of the church. It’s after that that the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is traditionally ascribed to St. Paul, and St. Peter’s first epistle and the epistle of Jude are written sometime after 80 AD, and then when you go beyond 90 AD, we have the New Testament writings of St. John, the Gospel of John, his three epistles and the book of Revelation. So by the end of the first century, around 100 AD, you have the end of the apostolic period and the close of the New Testament canon. So we have to keep this chronology in mind as we look at the discussion of sola scriptura, because, as I said, many of the things that are said are easily refuted by simply looking at the historical chronology. It proves that they can’t mean what they’re said to mean. And we’ll look at examples of this. So remember those events: the church founded in 33 AD, writings in the New Testament beginning around 50 AD, so 17 years with no so-called New Testament writings for anyone to read about or follow. And the writings continuing beyond the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Christians are scattered all over the world, and the Gospel goes to the ends of the earth. The New Testament is still being written, with St. John’s writings coming last after 90 AD, so keep that chronology in mind and remember that there are two different streams to always think about: the actual activity of the church in the world on the ground, and the writing that relates to that activity that’s being done afterwards by the apostles and by other inspired men, two separate streams of activity. It’s important to keep that distinction. So let’s begin by looking at the Protestant position of sola scriptura, that Latin phrase that I’ll keep referring to. Sola scriptura means scripture alone, scripture alone. And what Protestants argue is that scripture, that is written revelation, what we have in the Bible, the written scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Scripture is the only sure guide to the knowledge of what’s necessary for salvation. Protestants believe that all doctrines, any teaching that is said to be Christian teaching, anything that it is said that Christians must believe or do to be saved, must be found in the written scriptures, in the Bible, or must be deduced from it, reasoned from it, in a way that is necessary. And the Protestants argue that there is no tradition or church authority that has any kind of infallible authority, only the written scriptures. So scripture alone is the authoritative rule for the Christian faith and the Christian life. That’s the doctrine of sola scriptura. I want to make one thing clear. The Protestant position is not simply that the Bible is inspired. We are not arguing whether or not the Bible is inspired. Catholics believe that the scriptures are inspired and infallible. That’s not the dispute. That’s not the question. The question is whether the written Scriptures, the Bible, is the only authoritative guide for the Christian life. That’s the issue. Now that was not the teaching of the Catholic church at the time of the Reformation, and it was never the teaching of the Catholic Church in history. There’s no point in history. There’s no place in history, where we can go, where we can see the church teaching that the scripture alone is the authority for any Christian doctrine or practice. That was never taught in the history of the church. It was argued that this doctrine of sola scriptura was necessary by the Protestants, who separated themselves from the church in the 1500s, so this was a novel position to take in church history, and we would expect that the burden of proof would be upon the Protestants who introduced this objection and accused the church of wrongly teaching the Christian faith, wrongly teaching the way of salvation, wrongly teaching people how to live. The Protestants accused the Catholic Church of apostatizing or abandoning the original faith of the apostles. And any time that an accusation is made of evil, the burden of proof is on the accuser. And so when we look to the arguments from the Protestants, we’re asking the Protestants to prove that their accusations are true, prove that this doctrine of sola scriptura either was taught through church history at some point and was abandoned, which Protestants do not do, or to show us in the scriptures that the writings of the apostles affirm that only what is written may be used as a source of authoritative teaching in the Christian Faith. As I said, Protestants do not make an attempt to argue that sola scriptura was taught in church history. It wasn’t. Protestants do not make an attempt to show a point at which the Catholic Church supposedly abandoned the established faith. They don’t make those kinds of historical arguments. What they do is present passages of Scripture that they claim prove their point. And I’d like to look at these passages and consider whether or not they actually prove the Protestant position. The first and most common passage that they provide comes from an epistle of St. Paul, written around the time of his death, sometime after 60 AD, so again, 30 years into church history. St. Paul, preparing to die, writes two epistles to Timothy, who was a convert of Paul’s evangelization, who Paul had appointed and ordained as a minister in the church. He wrote in his second epistle to Timothy, the following, he said, from your infancy you have known the holy scriptures, which can instruct you to salvation by the faith,

which is in Christ, Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. This again, is Second Timothy, chapter three, verses 15 to 17. Protestants argue that this passage clearly teaches, first of all, that scripture is inspired by God, which we already agree upon.

The Epistle of St. James was written sometime after 62 AD. Between 64 and 67 AD, Saints Peter and Paul were put to death in Rome, so their lives were ended before 70 AD within 30 years after the founding of the church. It was at the end of Paul’s life that he wrote his epistles to Timothy and Titus. And that makes sense when a man who’s heading towards the end of his life, and Paul knew that he writes about it in his epistles, was writing instructions to men that he himself had ordained, that he knew would be his successors.

And so we find those letters to first and second Timothy, first and second Timothy and Titus written near the time of Paul’s death. The Gospel of Mark was written after 65 AD, and then the catastrophic event that really marks, or that serves really as the date post, which is used to establish all of these other dates, is the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, when the whole Jewish worship system, the temple, everything is pulled down to the ground and destroyed and remains in ruins. To this day, there is no more temple, there is no more priesthood. There is no more Jewish sacrificial system. There is no more Mosaic Jewish religion practiced in the world, and that was because of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, again, within 40 years of the founding of the church.

It’s after that that the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is traditionally ascribed to St. Paul, and St. Peter’s first epistle and the epistle of Jude are written sometime after 80 AD, and then when you go beyond 90 AD, we have the New Testament writings of St. John, the Gospel of John, his three epistles and the book of Revelation. So by the end of the first century, around 100 AD, you have the end of the apostolic period and the close of the New Testament canon.

So we have to keep this chronology in mind as we look at the discussion of sola scriptura, because, as I said, many of the things that are said are easily refuted by simply looking at the historical chronology. It proves that they can’t mean what they’re said to mean. And we’ll look at examples of this.

So remember those events: the church founded in 33 AD, writings in the New Testament beginning around 50 AD, so 17 years with no so-called New Testament writings for anyone to read about or follow. And the writings continuing beyond the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Christians are scattered all over the world, and the Gospel goes to the ends of the earth. The New Testament is still being written, with St. John’s writings coming last after 90 AD, so keep that chronology in mind and remember that there are two different streams to always think about: the actual activity of the church in the world on the ground, and the writing that relates to that activity that’s being done afterwards by the apostles and by other inspired men, two separate streams of activity. It’s important to keep that distinction.

So let’s begin by looking at the Protestant position of sola scriptura, that Latin phrase that I’ll keep referring to. Sola scriptura means scripture alone, scripture alone. And what Protestants argue is that scripture, that is written revelation, what we have in the Bible, the written scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Scripture is the only sure guide to the knowledge of what’s necessary for salvation.

Protestants believe that all doctrines, any teaching that is said to be Christian teaching, anything that it is said that Christians must believe or do to be saved, must be found in the written scriptures, in the Bible, or must be deduced from it, reasoned from it, in a way that is necessary. And the Protestants argue that there is no tradition or church authority that has any kind of infallible authority, only the written scriptures. So scripture alone is the authoritative rule for the Christian faith and the Christian life. That’s the doctrine of sola scriptura.

I want to make one thing clear. The Protestant position is not simply that the Bible is inspired. We are not arguing whether or not the Bible is inspired. Catholics believe that the scriptures are inspired and infallible. That’s not the dispute. That’s not the question. The question is whether the written Scriptures, the Bible, is the only authoritative guide for the Christian life. That’s the issue.

Now that was not the teaching of the Catholic church at the time of the Reformation, and it was never the teaching of the Catholic Church in history. There’s no point in history. There’s no place in history, where we can go, where we can see the church teaching that the scripture alone is the authority for any Christian doctrine or practice. That was never taught in the history of the church.

It was argued that this doctrine of sola scriptura was necessary by the Protestants, who separated themselves from the church in the 1500s, so this was a novel position to take in church history, and we would expect that the burden of proof would be upon the Protestants who introduced this objection and accused the church of wrongly teaching the Christian faith, wrongly teaching the way of salvation, wrongly teaching people how to live.

The Protestants accused the Catholic Church of apostatizing or abandoning the original faith of the apostles. And any time that an accusation is made of evil, the burden of proof is on the accuser. And so when we look to the arguments from the Protestants, we’re asking the Protestants to prove that their accusations are true, prove that this doctrine of sola scriptura either was taught through church history at some point and was abandoned, which Protestants do not do, or to show us in the scriptures that the writings of the apostles affirm that only what is written may be used as a source of authoritative teaching in the Christian Faith.

As I said, Protestants do not make an attempt to argue that sola scriptura was taught in church history. It wasn’t. Protestants do not make an attempt to show a point at which the Catholic Church supposedly abandoned the established faith. They don’t make those kinds of historical arguments. What they do is present passages of Scripture that they claim prove their point. And I’d like to look at these passages and consider whether or not they actually prove the Protestant position.

The first and most common passage that they provide comes from an epistle of St. Paul, written around the time of his death, sometime after 60 AD, so again, 30 years into church history. St. Paul, preparing to die, writes two epistles to Timothy, who was a convert of Paul’s evangelization, who Paul had appointed and ordained as a minister in the church. He wrote in his second epistle to Timothy, the following, he said, from your infancy you have known the holy scriptures, which can instruct you to salvation by the faith, which is in Christ, Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. This again, is Second Timothy, chapter three, verses 15 to 17.

Protestants argue that this passage clearly teaches, first of all, that scripture is inspired by God, which we already agree upon. So that’s not a controversy, but the important part comes at the end, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished for all good works. Protestants argue that this passage says that the scriptures are inspired and that they are all sufficient. They provide everything that’s necessary for a Christian to live the Christian life.

Now Protestants make that argument from a position that is not the position that Timothy was in when he read this in this epistle addressed to him from St. Paul. A Protestant may be a person who doesn’t even go to church, who buys a Bible, reads the Bible and reads this passage, they think to themselves, I have the Bible in my hand. I am holding the scriptures right here in my hand, and this passage says that the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. And the Protestant concludes this Bible is all I need. Paul says so right here in Second Timothy, this is all I need.

Now, the problem, as I said, is that the context is different. Paul wrote those words, not to 21st Century Joe buying his King James Bible at Walmart, who doesn’t go to church and just reads his Bible. Those words were not addressed to a person in those circumstances, those words were written to Timothy. Timothy was a member of the Apostolic Church. He was an ordained minister in the Apostolic Church. He was being instructed by St. Paul what to do and how to live as St. Paul approached his martyrdom.

So Timothy was in the Apostolic Church. He was not only in but he was an ordained minister in the Apostolic Church. He was living in the living church, and St. Paul wrote to him and said, the scriptures are inspired by God, and they are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. This verse when we consider the circumstances, when we consider the author, when we consider the recipient to whom the epistle was addressed, and his circumstances, this passage does not support the Protestant interpretation and use of it.

All that this passage teaches, if we want to actually consider the force or significance of this passage, it teaches us that the scriptures are inspired, and that if Timothy, or someone like Timothy, studies the scriptures, he will have the inspired source, or an inspired source that is profitable for him to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct, and as we’ll see in the next chapter, in St. Paul’s letter to Timothy, Paul is urging Timothy to take up the work of the preacher and do the work of the ministry that Paul is going to be leaving to him. And so Paul is essentially telling Timothy use the scriptures as the source of your ministry, but that ministry is one that is taking place within the context of the established church.

It’s not an independent guy with his Bible being told that he has no need for a church. He has no need for any authority, no need for any obedience to leaders in the church, but all he needs is the Bible. That is not what is being communicated in Second Timothy chapter three.

Moreover, note that Paul writes that you have known the Holy Scriptures from your infancy. Now, again, this was likely written sometime after 60 AD. The New Testament scriptures were not even available yet. Letters that Paul had written, his earliest letters were likely not even known to Timothy. This letter is being written to Timothy near the end of Paul’s life, the Gospels had not yet been written. None of the works of John had been written.

For sure, what Paul’s referring to here in Second Timothy three, when he talks about the scriptures, is not the New Testament, so it’s not the Christian Bible. He’s talking to Timothy, who was raised studying as a son of a Jewish mother and grandmother. He’s talking to a boy who was raised studying the Old Testament. And he’s telling him, from your infancy, you have known the Old Testament writings, and these Old Testament writings can instruct you to salvation.

This is what our Lord referred to when he said, You think that in Moses you have eternal life, but Moses wrote about me. The study and right interpretation of the writings of Moses, that is the Old Testament Scriptures, lead a true Jew to Christ. This is what Paul is talking about here in Second Timothy. If you’re going to preach the gospel and you’re going to defend the Christian faith, the faith which is in Christ Jesus, you’ve known the Scriptures from your youth. You know that they can instruct you to salvation. Therefore, you should use the scriptures to instruct others to salvation in the same way. That’s the message that Paul is giving to Timothy, an ordained minister in the Apostolic Church in the first century, around 60 AD. This does not teach that scripture alone is necessary and authoritative for Christian faith and practice. Does not prove the Protestant position. Let’s look at another passage in Galatians Chapter One. St. Paul says the following, and this is quoted all the time. St. Paul writes to the Galatians, though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you. Let him be accursed. Though we or an angel from heaven, if anyone, even an angel, preaches to you, any other gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. This is presented as if there is some knowledge of the gospel and any movement away from this gospel that’s known is to be rejected. The problem with this verse is that it says nothing about Scripture. First of all, it says, though we or an angel, preach any other gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. Galatians one, which, for some reason, is commonly quoted by Protestants, actually supports the Catholic position. It doesn’t say anything at all about anything written, any scriptures. It actually says that the preached message, the spoken message that you’ve received, that is the authoritative message. And if anyone comes to you and says anything other than what we said to you, let him be anathema. So Galatians one doesn’t in any way teach the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. In fact, it proves the opposite. It proves that the early Christians didn’t believe that they were to follow the scriptures as the only guide of life. They’re literally being told by Paul here in Galatians one that the preaching that they received is the authoritative guide, and they’re to listen to nothing else. So if something was written in the name of Peter or Paul or anyone else and presented to the Galatians, Paul is telling them that nothing is to be accepted that differs from what was spoken to them,

what was preached to them by the apostles, so that teaches the opposite of sola scriptura. Another passage that Protestants commonly refer to is found in Acts chapter 17. We read about a Christian church in Berea. Berea is the city that Paul is visiting. The church in Berea, B-E-R-E-A, and Paul goes to the people, and he preaches to them the gospel as an evangelist. And Acts chapter 17, verse 11 says these hearers, not necessarily Christians, these were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and they searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. So these Bereans were called noble in the book of Acts because they listened to the preaching of Paul and his companions, and when they heard the things that Paul was preaching, they didn’t react, they didn’t contradict, they didn’t reject his message. They listened to what he said, and then they went and they searched the scriptures daily to see whether the things that he said were true or not. Protestants present this passage because it refers to searching the scriptures to test the truth of what is spoken. The problem with this, again, is that the scriptures here in Acts chapter 17, when Paul visits the church at Berea, there are no New Testament scriptures, so the scriptures in Acts 17 are referring to the Old Testament scriptures and the audience. These Bereans are Jews. Paul is preaching the gospel to Jews in Berea, and he’s telling them that Jesus Christ is the Messiah who was promised in the writings of Moses, who was spoken about by the prophets in the Jewish Scriptures. And as Paul said these things to the Jewish people, they were searching the writings of Moses and the writings of the prophets to see if these things were so. So this shows that the preaching of the apostles and the truth of the gospel needed to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. No one denies that, but this does not in any way teach that the Christian Bible is the only authority. It doesn’t teach that at all. It can’t possibly prove that because the New Testament was not even written when this event in Acts 17 took place. So again, this passage, when the context of it is considered, when the chronology is considered, doesn’t prove the Protestant position. This has to do with Jews checking to see whether the Christian message actually fulfilled the prophecies spoken in the Old Testament. Another passage that’s quoted by Protestants comes from the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament. We read in Isaiah chapter eight, to the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, then there is no light in them. To the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them. And this verse is quoted by Protestants to show that when people speak, we’re to compare what they say with what is written, to the law and to the testimony. Now, again, this is coming from the Old Testament. This has nothing to do with the New Testament. This has nothing to do with the Christian Bible. To the law and to the testimony refers to the law of Moses. And so Isaiah, the prophet, is saying that if any Jewish teachers, and again, this is in Old Testament times, if anyone says anything in God’s name, we have to consider whether it agrees with the law that we have that was given to us by Moses, which is the law of the Jewish religion. Isaiah was obviously not speaking about the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Now what we can see is that these verses kind of make hints at the importance of the holy scriptures, but that’s not something that Catholicism doubts or denies. The Catholic Church teaches that the scriptures are inspired. The Catholic Church teaches that the scriptures are infallible and inerrant, so none of this has anything to do with inspiration by itself. That’s already believed and taught in the Catholic Church. Martin Luther didn’t leave the Catholic Church because he believed that the Bible was inspired. That was already Catholic teaching. Martin Luther was a scripture scholar in the Catholic Church. So that’s not the issue. The question that we need to ask is, do these passages, or do any passages in Scripture, teach that only the Christian Bible may be used as a source of authority in Christian teaching, and there is no passage of scripture that teaches that. So the Protestants make this accusation, but they never prove it. If this was a court case, the Catholic Church would be acquitted and found not guilty. The Protestants cannot—it’s not that they fail to do so. They cannot prove their accusations because they’re false. Never in church history or in Scripture is the idea of sola scriptura taught. It’s never found anywhere, and it needs to be abandoned. So the Protestant argument is not just that scripture is inspired, it’s that Scripture is all that’s necessary, that Scripture is the only source of authoritative teaching, that the only thing necessary for salvation, the only thing that any Christian needs to do to live the Christian life, must be found in the scriptures or must be proven from the scriptures alone. So for example, let’s say that we can prove that from the very beginning of the church, as far as historical records go back, Christians always made the sign of the cross. Protestants can reject the sign of the cross because they’ll say, show me in the Bible where people make the sign of the cross. They will say that the fact that people have made the sign of the cross from the beginning of church history is meaningless. And if you can’t show me in the Bible where people make the sign of the cross, then I don’t need to make the sign of the cross. And we could actually say that’s true, you don’t need to make the sign of the cross. But Protestants go beyond that. That would be sufficient if a Protestant said, I don’t need to make the sign of the cross, because nothing in scripture tells me that I need to make the sign of the cross. That would be a reasonable argument. But they don’t end there. They go further and say, therefore making the sign of the cross is wrong. Yesterday, for example, I saw a Protestant pastor arguing that Catholics receiving ashes on their heads on Ash Wednesday was virtue signaling, because there is no Ash Wednesday in the Bible. Notice he doesn’t say there is no Ash Wednesday celebration described in the New Testament, therefore, I don’t need to go to Ash Wednesday service. That’s not what he said. And you know what? If he would have said that, he would have been right. Even in the Catholic Church, going to Ash Wednesday service is not required of Catholics. So if he would argue that he doesn’t need to get ashes on his head because it doesn’t say that in the Bible, that’d be fine. He’d be right. He doesn’t need to get ashes on his head. Nobody does. The Catholic Church doesn’t even teach that. But what he does is go further than that and say, therefore, those people who get ashes on their head, they’re a bunch of hypocrites. They’re virtue signaling, because that’s never written in the Bible. That’s what Protestants actually do. They go beyond merely saying, I don’t need to do this, because this is not seen anywhere in Scripture. They go beyond that and forbid anyone to do anything that’s not recorded in the scriptures. I’ll give you another example. If I pray the prayer to St. Michael, a Protestant will say, there’s no place in the Bible where people pray to the saints. That’s true. I would agree with that. I would agree that chronologically, it wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense to pray to saints while the saints were still living when the New Testament was being written. I wouldn’t expect to find the doctrine and practice of intercession with the saints and praying to the saints, or devotion to the saints. I wouldn’t expect to find that in the writings from the first 60 to 90 years of church history, when the saints were still alive. I wouldn’t expect to find that, but they go further than that, and they prohibit Catholics from praying to saints. And so if sola scriptura is the principle, and the Protestants argue that you may not pray to saints, you may not pray to the Virgin Mary, the question then becomes, for the Protestant, where in the Bible does it say you may not pray to the saints, or you may not pray to the Virgin Mary? Where is that in the Bible? It’s not in the Bible. So the question, then, for the Protestant is, if these prohibitions that are coming out of your mouth against Catholics are not in Scripture, why are you making these prohibitions? You yourself are not observing this principle of sola scriptura, because the idea of sola scriptura does not support the Protestant position. We could go on like this again and again and again. For example, Martin Luther separates himself from the one and only church that existed from ancient times for the sake of better doctrine. Martin Luther separated himself from the Pope and bishops. I could ask Protestants, where in the Bible do we find anyone separate himself from the church because he wants to practice a truer version of Christianity? Where is that in the Bible? Where is a Protestant Reformation or schism, a separation and division in the Bible? Where do men start their own churches in the Bible? Where is anything that Protestants do? Where is it in the Bible? Where do men ordain themselves pastors in the Bible? Where are seminaries in the Bible? None of these things are in the Bible. But you see the use of this principle, sola scriptura is very selective, very selective, and it’s not honest. It’s used to simply justify separating from the Catholic Church. It’s not a serious position, and that’s why I go back to the original argument I made from Proverbs 18, He that hath a mind to depart from a friend, seeketh occasions. And what I said is, these passages of Scripture, this sola scriptura argument, does not prove the case that Protestants make. It’s just used as an excuse. It is used as an excuse to do things that really make no sense. The Protestants act as if they are obliged to take this action because of the scriptures. But there is no argument from Scripture whatever for the things that they say and do against the Catholic Church. It’s simply not true. Protestants, for some reason, for some spiritual reason, desire to separate themselves from the church, and that was explicitly forbidden in the New Testament. I believe it’s in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews. He says, do not separate yourself from the assembly. He says in Hebrews 13:17, I know this for certain. He says, Obey your leaders, the leaders of the church. How can one obey the leaders of the church and separate from them? So I don’t believe that in any sense, Protestants can argue that the scriptures prove Catholic practice or teaching false, nor do I believe that this principle of sola scriptura would justify anything being done by Protestants, because what they do and what they say is not in the Bible. Very clear. What we should do is take a look on the other side of this discussion at what the Catholic church actually teaches about Christian doctrine and authority. What does the church actually teach? First of all, the Catholic Church teaches that divine revelation includes anything and everything that God reveals. Anything and everything that God reveals is divine revelation. And we can see one giant glaring failure in Protestant teaching is that the ultimate source of divine revelation, the ultimate source—and when you realize that the Protestants ignore this, the error becomes so glaring—the clearest and greatest source of divine revelation is the incarnation of Christ himself. The incarnation is the ultimate source of divine revelation. Christ Himself, God, the second person of the Trinity, became flesh and dwelt among us. John wrote the Jewish people, who were alive at that time, saw God revealed in the flesh. He ate with them, he drank with them, he talked with them, he taught them, He performed miracles in their presence. The Virgin Mary was the mother of the Incarnate Son of God. She was his mother. Divine Revelation took place in her home. She held the ultimate source of divine revelation in her arms. The life of Christ is the ultimate source of divine revelation, and that’s taught in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the Word of God. This is what the Gospel of John teaches, that no man has seen God at any time but the Son of God who was in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him or made Him known. So divine revelation includes anything and everything that God has ever revealed, most of all the life of our Lord. The Catholic Church teaches that this divine revelation, which is called the deposit of faith, is transmitted through sacred scripture and through sacred tradition, and that will cause Protestants to get upset to hear this term sacred tradition, but the opposition to this idea makes no sense, and Protestants, of course, contradict this by their own behavior. Divine revelation includes anything and everything that God has ever revealed, most of all, all that he revealed through the incarnation and life of the Son of God. That divine revelation is transmitted to us in two different sources, Sacred Scripture, which is where the words of inspired men were written, or where inspired men wrote things to us to actually preserve what was revealed. But it also includes sacred tradition, and sacred tradition means everything that was spoken and done by Christ and the apostles. How would anyone deny that what Christ spoke is not divine revelation? How would anyone deny that things that Christ did, which were known only to the apostles or to the Virgin Mary was not divine revelation? How can anyone argue that what the apostles did as they executed all that they had been taught by our Lord in the first century of the church? How can anyone argue that what they said and did was not divine revelation? Of course, it was. And again, the verses I quoted above from Protestant arguments actually prove this. When Paul wrote to the Galatians and said, If anyone comes to you and preaches something other than what we preached, let him be anathema. Paul was appealing not to Scripture, but according to the living, spoken tradition that had already been established there in Galatia and continued in Galatia. So the verses of scripture don’t support the Protestant position. The verses of scripture that we see actually support the Catholic position on divine revelation. Divine revelation is transmitted through both Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition. The Scriptures teach that, the Scriptures teach that. Moreover, the interpretation of Scripture is dependent upon the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would be given to the church and would guide the church into all truth. The Protestant idea that the Holy Spirit will be given to random individuals separated from the church is not found anywhere in Sacred Scripture. The Holy Spirit at Pentecost was given to the church. The Holy Spirit at Pentecost descended upon the apostles, and they spoke in tongues, and all the people heard the apostles speaking in their own languages. It was a miracle that was performed after the Holy Spirit descended upon them. The Holy Spirit was not just sort of thrown out into the world upon random people, it was given to the church. The interpretation, therefore, of what is written and of what was done, the interpretation of both scripture and tradition belongs to the authoritative church, because this promise of the truth is given to those to whom the Spirit is given and the Spirit is given to the church. Now, again, I know that some Protestants will object to that, but again, they would have to prove. How would someone prove that he has the Holy Spirit by saying, Well, I signed a prayer card, or I raised my hand when the preacher asked at the beach if anybody wanted to receive Jesus into his heart. That’s the evidence that you’ve received the Holy Spirit. That’s really going to be your argument. Where do we find that in the scriptures? Where do we find in the scriptures that some random guy was teaching in some random place, some guy who had no connection to the Apostolic Church, no authority from the apostles or through the apostles, and that the Holy Spirit was given to those people? We read the opposite in the New Testament. We read that there were evangelists going about teaching about Christ, preaching the gospel of Christ, and that when and where there was interest, the apostles would confirm those believers. The apostles would

This is what our Lord referred to when he said, You think that in Moses you have eternal life, but Moses wrote about me. The study and right interpretation of the writings of Moses, that is the Old Testament Scriptures, lead a true Jew to Christ. This is what Paul is talking about here in Second Timothy. If you’re going to preach the gospel and you’re going to defend the Christian faith, the faith which is in Christ Jesus, you’ve known the Scriptures from your youth. You know that they can instruct you to salvation. Therefore, you should use the scriptures to instruct others to salvation in the same way.

That’s the message that Paul is giving to Timothy, an ordained minister in the Apostolic Church in the first century, around 60 AD. This does not teach that scripture alone is necessary and authoritative for Christian faith and practice. Does not prove the Protestant position.

Let’s look at another passage in Galatians Chapter One. St. Paul says the following, and this is quoted all the time. St. Paul writes to the Galatians, though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you. Let him be accursed. Though we or an angel from heaven, if anyone, even an angel, preaches to you, any other gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

This is presented as if there is some knowledge of the gospel and any movement away from this gospel that’s known is to be rejected. The problem with this verse is that it says nothing about Scripture. First of all, it says, though we or an angel, preach any other gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. Galatians one, which, for some reason, is commonly quoted by Protestants, actually supports the Catholic position.

It doesn’t say anything at all about anything written, any scriptures. It actually says that the preached message, the spoken message that you’ve received, that is the authoritative message. And if anyone comes to you and says anything other than what we said to you, let him be anathema. So Galatians one doesn’t in any way teach the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. In fact, it proves the opposite.

It proves that the early Christians didn’t believe that they were to follow the scriptures as the only guide of life. They’re literally being told by Paul here in Galatians one that the preaching that they received is the authoritative guide, and they’re to listen to nothing else. So if something was written in the name of Peter or Paul or anyone else and presented to the Galatians, Paul is telling them that nothing is to be accepted that differs from what was spoken to them, what was preached to them by the apostles, so that teaches the opposite of sola scriptura.

Another passage that Protestants commonly refer to is found in Acts chapter 17. We read about a Christian church in Berea. Berea is the city that Paul is visiting. The church in Berea, B-E-R-E-A, and Paul goes to the people, and he preaches to them the gospel as an evangelist. And Acts chapter 17, verse 11 says these hearers, not necessarily Christians, these were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and they searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

So these Bereans were called noble in the book of Acts because they listened to the preaching of Paul and his companions, and when they heard the things that Paul was preaching, they didn’t react, they didn’t contradict, they didn’t reject his message. They listened to what he said, and then they went and they searched the scriptures daily to see whether the things that he said were true or not.

Protestants present this passage because it refers to searching the scriptures to test the truth of what is spoken. The problem with this, again, is that the scriptures here in Acts chapter 17, when Paul visits the church at Berea, there are no New Testament scriptures, so the scriptures in Acts 17 are referring to the Old Testament scriptures and the audience. These Bereans are Jews.

Paul is preaching the gospel to Jews in Berea, and he’s telling them that Jesus Christ is the Messiah who was promised in the writings of Moses, who was spoken about by the prophets in the Jewish Scriptures. And as Paul said these things to the Jewish people, they were searching the writings of Moses and the writings of the prophets to see if these things were so.

So this shows that the preaching of the apostles and the truth of the gospel needed to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. No one denies that, but this does not in any way teach that the Christian Bible is the only authority. It doesn’t teach that at all. It can’t possibly prove that because the New Testament was not even written when this event in Acts 17 took place. So again, this passage, when the context of it is considered, when the chronology is considered, doesn’t prove the Protestant position. This has to do with Jews checking to see whether the Christian message actually fulfilled the prophecies spoken in the Old Testament.

Another passage that’s quoted by Protestants comes from the prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament. We read in Isaiah chapter eight, to the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, then there is no light in them. To the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them. And this verse is quoted by Protestants to show that when people speak, we’re to compare what they say with what is written, to the law and to the testimony.

Now, again, this is coming from the Old Testament. This has nothing to do with the New Testament. This has nothing to do with the Christian Bible. To the law and to the testimony refers to the law of Moses. And so Isaiah, the prophet, is saying that if any Jewish teachers, and again, this is in Old Testament times, if anyone says anything in God’s name, we have to consider whether it agrees with the law that we have that was given to us by Moses, which is the law of the Jewish religion. Isaiah was obviously not speaking about the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

Now what we can see is that these verses kind of make hints at the importance of the holy scriptures, but that’s not something that Catholicism doubts or denies. The Catholic Church teaches that the scriptures are inspired. The Catholic Church teaches that the scriptures are infallible and inerrant, so none of this has anything to do with inspiration by itself. That’s already believed and taught in the Catholic Church. Martin Luther didn’t leave the Catholic Church because he believed that the Bible was inspired. That was already Catholic teaching. Martin Luther was a scripture scholar in the Catholic Church.

So that’s not the issue. The question that we need to ask is, do these passages, or do any passages in Scripture, teach that only the Christian Bible may be used as a source of authority in Christian teaching, and there is no passage of scripture that teaches that. So the Protestants make this accusation, but they never prove it.

If this was a court case, the Catholic Church would be acquitted and found not guilty. The Protestants cannot—it’s not that they fail to do so. They cannot prove their accusations because they’re false. Never in church history or in Scripture is the idea of sola scriptura taught. It’s never found anywhere, and it needs to be abandoned.

So the Protestant argument is not just that scripture is inspired, it’s that Scripture is all that’s necessary, that Scripture is the only source of authoritative teaching, that the only thing necessary for salvation, the only thing that any Christian needs to do to live the Christian life, must be found in the scriptures or must be proven from the scriptures alone.

So for example, let’s say that we can prove that from the very beginning of the church, as far as historical records go back, Christians always made the sign of the cross. Protestants can reject the sign of the cross because they’ll say, show me in the Bible where people make the sign of the cross. They will say that the fact that people have made the sign of the cross from the beginning of church history is meaningless. And if you can’t show me in the Bible where people make the sign of the cross, then I don’t need to make the sign of the cross. And we could actually say that’s true, you don’t need to make the sign of the cross.

But Protestants go beyond that. That would be sufficient if a Protestant said, I don’t need to make the sign of the cross, because nothing in scripture tells me that I need to make the sign of the cross. That would be a reasonable argument. But they don’t end there. They go further and say, therefore making the sign of the cross is wrong.

Yesterday, for example, I saw a Protestant pastor arguing that Catholics receiving ashes on their heads on Ash Wednesday was virtue signaling, because there is no Ash Wednesday in the Bible. Notice he doesn’t say there is no Ash Wednesday celebration described in the New Testament, therefore, I don’t need to go to Ash Wednesday service. That’s not what he said. And you know what? If he would have said that, he would have been right. Even in the Catholic Church, going to Ash Wednesday service is not required of Catholics.

So if he would argue that he doesn’t need to get ashes on his head because it doesn’t say that in the Bible, that’d be fine. He’d be right. He doesn’t need to get ashes on his head. Nobody does. The Catholic Church doesn’t even teach that. But what he does is go further than that and say, therefore, those people who get ashes on their head, they’re a bunch of hypocrites. They’re virtue signaling, because that’s never written in the Bible.

That’s what Protestants actually do. They go beyond merely saying, I don’t need to do this, because this is not seen anywhere in Scripture. They go beyond that and forbid anyone to do anything that’s not recorded in the scriptures.

I’ll give you another example. If I pray the prayer to St. Michael, a Protestant will say, there’s no place in the Bible where people pray to the saints. That’s true. I would agree with that. I would agree that chronologically, it wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense to pray to saints while the saints were still living when the New Testament was being written. I wouldn’t expect to find the doctrine and practice of intercession with the saints and praying to the saints, or devotion to the saints. I wouldn’t expect to find that in the writings from the first 60 to 90 years of church history, when the saints were still alive.

I wouldn’t expect to find that, but they go further than that, and they prohibit Catholics from praying to saints. And so if sola scriptura is the principle, and the Protestants argue that you may not pray to saints, you may not pray to the Virgin Mary, the question then becomes, for the Protestant, where in the Bible does it say you may not pray to the saints, or you may not pray to the Virgin Mary? Where is that in the Bible? It’s not in the Bible.

So the question, then, for the Protestant is, if these prohibitions that are coming out of your mouth against Catholics are not in Scripture, why are you making these prohibitions? You yourself are not observing this principle of sola scriptura, because the idea of sola scriptura does not support the Protestant position.

We could go on like this again and again and again. For example, Martin Luther separates himself from the one and only church that existed from ancient times for the sake of better doctrine. Martin Luther separated himself from the Pope and bishops. I could ask Protestants, where in the Bible do we find anyone separate himself from the church because he wants to practice a truer version of Christianity? Where is that in the Bible?

Where is a Protestant Reformation or schism, a separation and division in the Bible? Where do men start their own churches in the Bible? Where is anything that Protestants do? Where is it in the Bible? Where do men ordain themselves pastors in the Bible? Where are seminaries in the Bible? None of these things are in the Bible.

But you see the use of this principle, sola scriptura is very selective, very selective, and it’s not honest. It’s used to simply justify separating from the Catholic Church. It’s not a serious position, and that’s why I go back to the original argument I made from Proverbs 18, He that hath a mind to depart from a friend, seeketh occasions. And what I said is, these passages of Scripture, this sola scriptura argument, does not prove the case that Protestants make. It’s just used as an excuse. It is used as an excuse to do things that really make no sense.

The Protestants act as if they are obliged to take this action because of the scriptures. But there is no argument from Scripture whatever for the things that they say and do against the Catholic Church. It’s simply not true. Protestants, for some reason, for some spiritual reason, desire to separate themselves from the church, and that was explicitly forbidden in the New Testament.

I believe it’s in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews. He says, do not separate yourself from the assembly. He says in Hebrews 13:17, I know this for certain. He says, Obey your leaders, the leaders of the church. How can one obey the leaders of the church and separate from them?

So I don’t believe that in any sense, Protestants can argue that the scriptures prove Catholic practice or teaching false, nor do I believe that this principle of sola scriptura would justify anything being done by Protestants, because what they do and what they say is not in the Bible. Very clear.

What we should do is take a look on the other side of this discussion at what the Catholic church actually teaches about Christian doctrine and authority. What does the church actually teach?

First of all, the Catholic Church teaches that divine revelation includes anything and everything that God reveals. Anything and everything that God reveals is divine revelation. And we can see one giant glaring failure in Protestant teaching is that the ultimate source of divine revelation, the ultimate source—and when you realize that the Protestants ignore this, the error becomes so glaring—the clearest and greatest source of divine revelation is the incarnation of Christ himself.

The incarnation is the ultimate source of divine revelation. Christ Himself, God, the second person of the Trinity, became flesh and dwelt among us. John wrote the Jewish people, who were alive at that time, saw God revealed in the flesh. He ate with them, he drank with them, he talked with them, he taught them, He performed miracles in their presence. The Virgin Mary was the mother of the Incarnate Son of God. She was his mother. Divine Revelation took place in her home. She held the ultimate source of divine revelation in her arms.

The life of Christ is the ultimate source of divine revelation, and that’s taught in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is the Word of God. This is what the Gospel of John teaches, that no man has seen God at any time but the Son of God who was in the bosom of the Father, He has explained him or made Him known.

So divine revelation includes anything and everything that God has ever revealed, most of all the life of our Lord. The Catholic Church teaches that this divine revelation, which is called the deposit of faith, is transmitted through sacred scripture and through sacred tradition, and that will cause Protestants to get upset to hear this term sacred tradition, but the opposition to this idea makes no sense, and Protestants, of course, contradict this by their own behavior.

Divine revelation includes anything and everything that God has ever revealed, most of all, all that he revealed through the incarnation and life of the Son of God. That divine revelation is transmitted to us in two different sources, Sacred Scripture, which is where the words of inspired men were written, or where inspired men wrote things to us to actually preserve what was revealed.

But it also includes sacred tradition, and sacred tradition means everything that was spoken and done by Christ and the apostles. How would anyone deny that what Christ spoke is not divine revelation? How would anyone deny that things that Christ did, which were known only to the apostles or to the Virgin Mary was not divine revelation? How can anyone argue that what the apostles did as they executed all that they had been taught by our Lord in the first century of the church?

How can anyone argue that what they said and did was not divine revelation? Of course, it was. And again, the verses I quoted above from Protestant arguments actually prove this. When Paul wrote to the Galatians and said, If anyone comes to you and preaches something other than what we preached, let him be anathema. Paul was appealing not to Scripture, but according to the living, spoken tradition that had already been established there in Galatia and continued in Galatia.

So the verses of scripture don’t support the Protestant position. The verses of scripture that we see actually support the Catholic position on divine revelation. Divine revelation is transmitted through both Sacred Scripture and sacred tradition. The Scriptures teach that, the Scriptures teach that.

Moreover, the interpretation of Scripture is dependent upon the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would be given to the church and would guide the church into all truth. The Protestant idea that the Holy Spirit will be given to random individuals separated from the church is not found anywhere in Sacred Scripture.

The Holy Spirit at Pentecost was given to the church. The Holy Spirit at Pentecost descended upon the apostles, and they spoke in tongues, and all the people heard the apostles speaking in their own languages. It was a miracle that was performed after the Holy Spirit descended upon them. The Holy Spirit was not just sort of thrown out into the world upon random people, it was given to the church.

The interpretation, therefore, of what is written and of what was done, the interpretation of both scripture and tradition belongs to the authoritative church, because this promise of the truth is given to those to whom the Spirit is given and the Spirit is given to the church.

Now, again, I know that some Protestants will object to that, but again, they would have to prove. How would someone prove that he has the Holy Spirit by saying, Well, I signed a prayer card, or I raised my hand when the preacher asked at the beach if anybody wanted to receive Jesus into his heart. That’s the evidence that you’ve received the Holy Spirit. That’s really going to be your argument.

Where do we find that in the scriptures? Where do we find in the scriptures that some random guy was teaching in some random place, some guy who had no connection to the Apostolic Church, no authority from the apostles or through the apostles, and that the Holy Spirit was given to those people?

We read the opposite in the New Testament. We read that there were evangelists going about teaching about Christ, preaching the gospel of Christ, and that when and where there was interest, the apostles would confirm those believers. The apostles would lay hands on them and they would receive the Holy Spirit. Is that not what we read in the New Testament? Of course, it is all of the things that we read in the New Testament.

Writings are taking place in the Apostolic Church. It’s not this wild west, crazy religion with all kinds of stuff going on all over the place, everything we read of in the New Testament is taking place in the Apostolic Church through the authority of the apostles and the men whom they appointed in it so scripture and tradition are taught by the Catholic Church to be the means by which divine revelation, which was given at the time of Christ and ended with Christ, is transmitted to us both scripture and tradition.

And the correct interpretation of that divine revelation is given to the authority of the Church, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is believed by the church to be inspired and authoritative, but not the only source of Revelation, the Church’s position on this is the actual position in the New Testament that’s communicated, as we’ve already seen.

And I’d like to look at a few passages of Scripture which support the Catholic view and cannot be reconciled with the Protestant view. So let’s consider the writings of St John and the Gospel of John at the end. So remember, John is writing sometime around 95 AD the end of the apostolic age. He’s the last living apostle. He’s writing the Gospel of John at the end of the apostolic age, and he writes this many other signs, did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

Many other signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. And let’s just reflect on that for a second. What this teaches us is that the knowledge of the disciples is greater than the content of Scripture. The knowledge of the disciples about Christ and His Works was greater than the content of Scripture.

The scripture represented a portion of the knowledge of the apostles so which thinking reasonably, which would be greater the doctrine of the apostles, the counsel of the apostles, the judgments of the apostles, or the content of what the apostles chose to write, which was confessedly only a portion of what they saw and heard and knew the authority of the apostles, the knowledge of the apostles was actually greater than the scriptures.

Many other signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. And John goes on to say, these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in his name. So John is saying, I’ve taken some of the signs, some of the things that we saw, and I’m writing them that you may believe I think these are sufficient. These are sufficient for you to believe you who are reading, for you to believe that Jesus is the Christ.

I believe these are sufficient, but they’re not exhaustive. Again, in John chapter 21 again, John writes, there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they should be written, every one, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Many other things which Jesus did, which if they should be written, every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

What this teaches us here is that compared to the divine revelation that was given in the person of Christ Himself, the scriptures are just a little piece. The scriptures are relatively nothing compared to the revelation that was present in Christ Himself, which the apostles saw and knew. John is literally saying, I’m sharing with you some of the things that I saw, but I can’t even begin to describe all the things that I saw and heard and experienced living with the Lord.

This puts the scriptures in perspective and shows us that as helpful as they may be, as inspired and true and infallible as they may be, they’re just a piece of divine revelation, and they are not to be understood as the sort of all inclusive, exhaustive record of everything that is to be known about God the apostles themselves knew. More than the scriptures contained, that supports the Catholic view of authority, that includes both scripture and tradition, and does not support the Protestant view that scripture alone is all that’s needed, or all that God intended for Christians to have obviously proven false in the apostles themselves.

Now moving on, let’s consider some more things, two things that St Paul wrote. Paul wrote this to the Thessalonians. He wrote, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our epistle, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether you have been taught them by word that is by speaking, or our epistle that is by writing. This passage clearly refutes sola scriptura, literally and explicitly proves that St Paul did not believe when he wrote Second Timothy, as we read earlier, he did not believe that scripture alone was authoritative.

We have seen him now in two different places tell Christians to stick to what they heard spoken. And he says that here again, hold the traditions which you were taught by word or by epistle. Now this passage here perfectly teaches the Catholic position on authority. It teaches that both scripture and tradition are the means by which divine revelation is transmitted to the church. This passage in Second Thessalonians cannot be reconciled with sola scriptura.

This passage perfectly aligns with the Catholic teaching because it’s true and contradicts the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura clearly teaches that, at least for the Thessalonians, Scripture was not the only authority for the life of their church. There were things that they were taught, things that they likely did, that were not written, and they were told to stick to those traditions, to keep fast, to hold fast to those traditions which were established among them, the way that they worshiped, the organization of the church, the appointment of leaders, all the things that were taught to them and shown them and established by the apostles, and those appointed by the apostles to establish the worship of God in the Christian church, they were told to hold fast to that, not to listen to anything taught by anyone else, and that there was both an oral and a written tradition, just as the Catholic Church teaches again in Second Timothy chapter two.

So again, remember before we saw Second Timothy chapter three, which said all scriptures inspired by God and so on. And I said that in Timothy’s circumstance, sola scriptura can’t possibly be the intention of that passage if we go one chapter earlier to Second Timothy two, we read this, the things which you have heard from me, among many witnesses, these same things commit to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also.

So what were these men teaching? What was Timothy told to teach? What were these men teaching? He was told to teach the things which Paul taught him, things which you have heard from me, teach also to other faithful men, that passage right there, when joined with Second Timothy, three together, teach the Catholic doctrine of authority, both scripture and tradition.

Those two passages taken together, refute the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, and we see what the Protestants do. They take second Timothy three and ignore Second Timothy two they twist the Scriptures because they’re looking to justify their separation from the Catholic Church. They’re not being moved by the scripture to separate. They are seeking a cause because they have a mind to depart from a friend.

So clear, clear examples in Scripture that teach that sola scriptura is false. Moving forward, let’s go look at something written by St Peter in his second epistle. Second Peter, chapter one, we learn more about this idea of inspiration. We read prophecy came not in old time by the will of man. Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This is an explanation of divine inspiration. Notice, it has nothing to do with writing. It doesn’t say that God inspired the writings alone. It said that God inspired holy men. Men were moved by the Holy Spirit. That’s what it means to be inspired. And the inspiration of these men was communicated not only by writing, but also by speaking, by preaching, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

In other words, divine revelation was given to men in the form of spoken language, not sola scriptura, a direct contradiction and refutation of sola scriptura.

There’s another example that’s clear on this issue. In Acts chapter 20, we have St Paul in his missionary journeys. He’s at Ephesus, which is a city in Asia Minor. He’s preparing to depart from Asia Minor and sail away. And he’s basically, we could say, like the Bishop of these churches, even though he’s traveling. So I don’t think it’s right to consider him a bishop, but he is responsible to go and evangelize throughout the Gentile world and then to establish churches, and he appoints leaders over those churches, because these are not independent churches as Protestants would have.

These are all local churches within the Apostolic Church, all unified under the authority of the apostles. Paul is there to tell them the gospel, to receive them into the sacramental life through baptism, and then to establish an ordered church that follows the decrees of the apostles. We’ll get to that in a minute, I think.

And then he appoints their leaders, and he says this to them as he’s about to leave in Acts, chapter 20, verse 35 he says, I have showed you all things. I’ve showed you all things. How that laboring as I do, you ought to support the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said it is more blessed to give than to receive notice.

What St Paul says, if you’re wondering what you should do or how the ministry should be conducted, he doesn’t say, read the Bible, dummy, search the scriptures. The scriptures alone are the source of Christian doctrine. No, that’s not what he says. That’s not biblical teaching.

St Paul says, If you want to know what to do, just do what I did. I showed you all things. I showed you how to labor. I showed you how to support the weak. Oh, and by the way, remember the words of our Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Notice. What verse is that? Where does Jesus in the Bible say It is more blessed to give than to receive? Oh, he never says that in the Gospels. That quote from Jesus is actually not in the scriptures. That seems to suggest that the apostles knew a lot more than the scriptures actually contained. Doesn’t it? It certainly does.

It perfectly proves the truth that divine revelation was transmitted by both scripture and by the living tradition established in the church. Paul says, Here I showed you all things that is, I established the life, I established the method. And I also share with you words that are not written like this, it is more blessed to give than to receive acts 20:35 clearly refutes sola scriptura and clearly proves the Catholic doctrine that divine revelation is transmitted to us by both scripture and apostolic tradition.

Now another way to see that sola scriptura was never intended by our Lord, never taught in the scriptures, is the fact that Christ is if the Scripture is all that’s needed. If we take the Protestant interpretation of Second Timothy three, and say that the Bible is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching and correction and training in righteousness, so that you can be perfect, thoroughly equipped for every work. If the meaning of that passage is that all I need is the Bible. All I need is the Bible.

Then what do we do with all the passages in the Gospel where Christ talks about establishing His Church on earth, where Christ is training the apostles and giving them authority to do the work of the Christian priesthood. He says in Matthew 16, I say to you, and he is talking to St Peter, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

I give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. If sola scriptura was the intention of Our Lord, what in the world does Matthew 16 have to do with sola scriptura?

He’s telling Peter you are going to have authority over the church, and he says, I’m giving you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Now, none of us are stupid. We all understand what keys are for keys only exist where there are locks. So the kingdom of heaven must be something that’s locked. And Jesus has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He has the ability to unlock the kingdom, and he has the ability to lock the kingdom.

And he says here in Matthew 16 to Peter, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you shall bind on earth. And the word bind simply means to lock. Remember the illustration here. The imagery is keys. Whatever you shall lock on earth shall be locked in heaven. Whatever you shall loose or unlock on earth shall be unlocked in heaven.

If the Bible is the only authority what in the world is the meaning of these keys given to Peter? These keys make no sense in Protestant teaching. They have nothing to do with Protestant teaching. These keys have everything to do with Catholic teaching. Catholics argue that this is where Jesus establishes the papacy. He establishes Peter as his vicar on earth, His representative to whom He gives His authority. That’s the significance of the keys, and Peter is given this authority to judge based on his apostolic knowledge of Christ and His will, which we’ve seen, exceeds the content of what is written in the Scriptures.

This can’t be reconciled with Protestant teaching and doesn’t in any way support the idea of sola scriptura that Tommy and his Bible, he’s got everything that he needs to live the Christian life. Tommy and his little religion, with his Bible, can’t make any sense out of Matthew chapter 16.

Let’s go again to Matthew chapter 18. Jesus is teaching about how to deal with discipline issues in the church. Discipline issues in the church. He says that if your brother sins against you, you shall go and admonish him to his face, privately, one on one, if he doesn’t respond to you rightly, if he doesn’t listen, then you should tell the leaders of the church, and you should bring witnesses, two or three witnesses, and go and again, admonish him.

And if he doesn’t respond, then we read in Matthew 18, if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church. What is the church for Tommy and his Bible? Who does Tommy tell when someone sins against him? Who does Tommy go to tell if he’s sitting at home with his Bible. These passages don’t even make any sense. They assume the existence of a visible, present, hierarchical church.

And get this, if he neglects to listen to the church, let him be to thee as a heathen man and a publican. So one is either in the church or he is out of the church. There is no independent religion. This is not talking about some independent church on Jones Street in Gooberville. There is one church and a man who doesn’t respond when he is admonished, when he is corrected by the church, is put out of the church and is to be considered an unbeliever no matter what he says, no matter what he says walking around with his Bible, his Bible is not the authority. The Church is the authority.

If he’s put out of the church, he is said to be treated and considered as a heathen and a publican. It doesn’t matter what he thinks his doctrine is. It doesn’t matter what he thinks the Bible says, if he is separated from the church, he’s to be considered as a heathen and publican, because salvation is in the church.

Luke chapter 10, again, our Lord speaking to his apostles, not to random Christians with Bibles, not to self ordained people calling themselves pastors. He’s talking to his chosen apostles. Jesus says to them, he who hears you hears me, He who despises you despises me, and he who despises me despises him who sent me.

So if you snub your nose at the church, the Apostolic Church, wouldn’t that mean that you despise the apostles and the church that the apostles established. And doesn’t Jesus say here in Luke 10, that if you despise his apostles, that you despise him, and if you despise his apostles, you despise God who sent him, you just ignore that.

You just take your sola scriptura position and say, like, I’m going to read my Bible and whatever I think it means that’s all that matters, that’s all that’s necessary. Is that religion, me and my Bible, is that religion taught in the Bible, of course, not.

One last verse to look at, Titus, chapter one, St Paul is writing again at the end of his life. He’s writing to Titus, who was again a man that he himself had ordained. He says, I left you in Crete, an island in the Mediterranean Sea. I left you in Crete that you should set in order the things that are wanting and that you should ordain elders in every city as I had appointed you.

So Paul tells Titus that he is leaving him on this island, in Crete, in order that he should set churches in order. Does this sound like a bunch of independent churches started by their own local people or by their own pastors? Does this sound like a religion where different churches do whatever they want and they have all different ideas about what Christianity looks like, and they appoint themselves leaders, or elect their own leaders, or choose their leaders.

Or does this sound like a single, hierarchical church that’s established throughout the world, that’s governed in a systematic way by the apostles I left you in Crete that you should set in order the things that are wanting, that you should ordain elders in every city.

How are these elders being appointed? Are they starting their own churches? Are congregations electing or hiring their own pastors? No. Titus is sent to Crete to tell them who their leaders will be, to appoint leaders in every city, and if Titus asks, well, how should I do this?

St Paul’s answer is, not read the Bible. The Bible is all you need. Paul’s answer to Titus is, do what I did to you. Ordain elders in every city as I had appointed you. So again, we see this authoritative church. We see this direction of Christians. We do not see individual Christians reading their Bibles and choosing their own adventure.

We don’t see people reading the Bible and starting their own churches. We don’t see people reading the Bible, making their own conclusions and saying, that’s the truth, that’s God’s will. We see an authoritative, inspired church led by inspired men after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit is given to the apostles and they literally pass it on to others by means of the sacraments, by Holy Orders, where they lay their hands upon men and ordain them to offices in the church by baptism, where they baptize men and men receive the Holy Spirit through baptism by confirmation, where again they go and they examine, evaluate Christians, make sure they know the truth, test their faith, confirm them and give to them the Holy Spirit that’s literally taught in the New Testament and literally practiced in the Catholic Church, not practiced in Protestant churches, not practiced in Protestant churches.

So this whole idea of sola scriptura is only attractive to people who either don’t study the Scriptures carefully, don’t read the scriptures in context, or as I said at the beginning of this talk, whose hearts are veiled, whose hearts and minds are veiled, as it were, because they are blinded by a sin that they need to deal with. And this sin could be described in a number of different ways.

I gave as an example the teaching of Proverbs 18:1, he that desires to depart from a friend seeks occasions. I would argue that that’s what Protestants do. They’re looking for excuses to separate themselves from the Apostolic Church and pretend that it’s necessary to do so, but they have no support for that action. In fact, that action is sin itself.

Nowhere in Scripture do we see the behavior of Protestants on display nowhere and everywhere in Scripture, do we see the beginnings of what developed into the Catholic Church, certainly in seed form, but the principles are Catholic, certainly not Protestant.

The Catholic argument is that Christ founded a visible church, not an invisible church like the Protestants try to say, to justify again, not being part of the church. They say, Oh, the church is not a building and the church is not visible. The church is an invisible body of people who are born again. That’s not taught anywhere in Sacred Scripture. The church is visible. The church meets in places with names, specific locations.

The church has a very clear authority structure. The leaders of churches are appointed by existing leaders of churches, and there is a hierarchical system with Peter at the top, holding, as it were, the keys of the kingdom that’s clearly taught in Scripture, for anyone who reads it with a clear mind who’s not blinded by some kind of desire to resist the Catholic church, Christ founded a visible church very clearly, not all Revelation was written that’s explicitly stated by the writers of Scripture.

Oral apostolic teaching was authoritative and binding. Oral apostolic teaching was authoritative and binding. Again, that’s explicitly stated in Sacred Scripture. Inspired speech. Spoken language existed alongside inspired writing. It was not scripture alone that bound early Christians, the apostles literally taught them in the scriptures, even that they were accountable both to what was written and to what was spoken to them and what was shown to them.

Mr. William C. Michael, O.P.
Headmaster
Classical Liberal Arts Academy