The (Rare) Word That Refutes Sola Scriptura

In this episode Trent examines a common argument for sola scriptura and shows how New Testament scholarship undermines the common Protestant use of a single word to justify this core doctrine of Protestantism.

Links Mentioned:

Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
01:36 Theopneustos
04:35 The Root Fallacy
06:27 Only Scripture is Theopneustos?
10:18 Active vs Passive Sense in the Early Church
18:30 The Salvific Meaning Makes Sense in Context
23:29 James White Objections
28:48 Conclusion

[GospelSimplicity]

Not sure if you edit these yourself, but shoutout to whomever dug up all those clips for this. Takes way more time than people realize

[PhilosopongKatoliko]

I am a Catholic convert, and one of the reasons why I left Protestantism is because of the inconsistencies of Sola Scriptura. May God bless you, Trent, from Philippines 🇵🇭 .

[dylanschweitzer]

So glad Trent did this episode because I cant afford to spend $120 on that book over ONE WORD. 😂

[Theosis_and_prayer]

James White, Gavin Ortlund, Allie Beth Stuckey all define sola scriptura differently 😂

[TheologicalAmatuer]

Thanks for coming back to this topic so often. It was one of the biggest reasons I converted to Catholicism as I was graduating from seminary.

[AttackDog]

Protestant here, although I'm currently in the midst of a journey exploring Roman-Catholicism as of late, and I have a lot of respect for Roman-Catholicism. My personal view is that the strongest argument for Sola Scriptura is not necessarily a direct verse, but rather an inference from the overall thrust of the Biblical works, as is so with the Trinity. When Jesus was doing ministry He constantly comes into direct conflict with the traditions of the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, and Sadducess, and uses Scripture to refute them. It's not that Pharisees and Sadducees did not have authority to set rules and author traditions; Jesus Himself says "they sit in Moses' seat", but that their traditions obscured and set aside the Word of God (Scripture). Even well-meaning traditions attempting to reinforce Biblical principles can do damage to it. The "Magisterium" of the people of God at the tine (despite having real and God-given authority) were wrong in their additions and led people astray. Therefore, I see Sola Scriptura as the natural inference of how Jesus did ministry and taught. If we had video evidence of Paul or Peter or (obviously) Jesus speaking and teaching verbal tradition; I'd accept that as infallible and authoritative too as part of the deposit of Faith. We do not, therefore I see the writings which God has seen fit to preserve and hand down from the Apostles as authoritative.

[omarvazquez]

Sola Scriptura is honestly the number one reason I could never be a protestant. As RC Sproul said "we have a fallible list of infallible books". That raises a ton of questions. Good work Trent ❤

[pattyserrano]

I love how I'm guaranteed to learn something new everytime I open one of Trent's videos! Thanks so much!😊

[MelanieBarrozo-us]

Not Catholic but now I am thoroughly confused as to whether I’ve falsely believed sola scriptura all this time so thank you for sending me down the rabbit hole, Trent. 😅

[JamesBarber-cudz]

Prior to medieval Christian claims in regards to the Apostles, the Pharisees had already set an example of developing dogma based on an alleged authoritative oral tradition having been passed down alongside Scripture from Moses himself. And despite the fact that they were responsible for establishing the proper canon for Israel, much as Catholics claim for themselves, their assertions of tradition's authority was roundly condemned by none other than Jesus Himself: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!"

In all of Biblical history, not one mention is made about authoritative oral tradition as a compliment to Scripture. During the Apostolic Age, both Christ and the Apostles always appealed to Scripture as the final authority for any claims or practices under consideration. This is logical since only the Apostles and Prophets were understood as authoring Scripture and therefore having such authority. Priests, though appointed by God, were always commanded to follow Scripture rather than add traditions to it.

Prominent early Church Fathers recognized this principle, asserting that the true Catholic Church must always act in harmony with Scripture whenever "small matters" of tradition, as St. Basil the Great (d. 379) identified such issues, aren't specifically addressed. Thus, anything truly alien to Scripture or its theological principles must be abandoned.

For example, here is St. Basil describing such considerations as he experienced them in his era: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents" (The Holy Spirit,  27:66).

Obviously, such "small matters" tradition alone can legitimately support as Scripture is not violated. However, St. Basil also says this about Scripture and doctrine: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Letter 283).

St. Jerome (d. 420) also describes acceptable traditions in very harmonious and practical terms: in light if Scripture "Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? (Note that what he refers to here as a custom is actually described multiple times in the Book of Acts!). And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command (Obviously because of very clear consistency since he used a Scriptural example of what a Church custom might legitimately look like). For many other observances of the Churches,  which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, (a neutral practice implied by Jesus's "Great Commission" formula and later found in the Didache) and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy (Old Testament symbols); and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day (standing is in the Book of Ezra), and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8).

Keeping these principles of relating tradition to Scripture in view, we can now make sense of the writings of other early Fathers....

Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 216) said, “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the information from the Scriptures themselves” (Stromata 7:16).

Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) said, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 9).

Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367): “Everything that we ought to say and do, all that we need, is taught us by the Holy Scriptures ” (On the Trinity, 7:16).

St. Athanasius (d. 375) said, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) “The holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (To the Bishops of Egypt 1:4)." "The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written, ” (Exhort. ad Monachas). “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6).

St. Basil of the Great (d. 379) said, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on which side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Letter 189:3).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say" (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff).

St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) said, "What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius).

St. Ambrose (d. 396) said,  “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23).

St. Augustine (d. 430) said, "For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine (Letters, 148.15). “For in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Do not even listen to me if I tell you anything that is not supported by or found in the Scriptures” (Exposition on Psalm 119).

John Cassian (d. 435): “We ought not to believe in and to admit anything whatsoever which is not in the canon of Scripture or which is found to be contrary to it” (Conferences, 14.8).

[Theosis_and_prayer]

Q: What does sola scriptura mean?
A: Depends on which Prot you ask. They can't even agree on what it means or entails.

[Jay_in_Japan]

With sola scriptura, how do you determine the canon of Scripture? There's no book of the Bible that says, "these are the (66/73/81) books of the Bible". So you wind up relying on Tradition anyways, to determine the canon.

[coffeeanddavid]

Thirty seconds in and we already have a false dichotomy: alternative rules of faith subordinate to scripture =/= alternative rules of faith are subordinate to an individual's interpretation of scripture.

For the Reformers, Sola Scriptura served a *specific* purpose. The purpose was not literally to be: "Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church." Its purpose was to a standard for judging dogmas, controversies are then "explained and determined in a Christian way..." as noted in the Solid Declarations of the AC. This is because Scripture is true and truth can be found in it. That's very specific. When one engages with Sola Scriptura's well defined purpose, it's very easy to understand. 

Hence why we agree with the church fathers: 

"The sacred and divinely inspired writings are sufficient in themselves to discern truth." - St Athanasius.
"Neither should we follow the custom of man, but the truth of God." - St. Cyprian.
"Nor should you simply believe my words unless you receive proof from Holy Writ of what is told you." St. Cyril.
"We should confirm everything we say from Sacred Scriptures." - St. Jerome.
“The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later, by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.” Irenaeus
“All things are clear and plain from the divine Scriptures; whatever things are necessary are manifest.” Chryostom
"Let them show their church it 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 by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself... He must strengthen them [His disciples] with the testimonies from the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, etc. These, are the documents of our cause, these the foundations, these the pillars." - Augustine.

However, once one starts adding to it, or creating false dichotomies with it - it gets complex and one ends up refuting the strawman they created.

[FirstLast-pooz]

I feel like I'm remembering God breathing on the Apostles when he gives them their authority to bind and loose.

[Gerschwin]

I've started pointing out to protestant brothers that we can definitely agree with what the Bible says... but once they start telling me what it means, I start asking "So, is your interpretation infallible?"

[ericgatera]

This is probably the most important reflection on Sola scriptura from the epistle of Timothy found on youtube. Thanks Trent!

[Theosis_and_prayer]

Learning that sola-scriptura is false is what often helps Protestants leave their sects and become fully Christian.

[oldmovieman]

I’m a former Catholic now reformed Protestant. To me the best argument for the Catholic understanding of authority is that there needs to be a final arbiter of what scripture is teaching. Ironically I suppose, that’s also my biggest hang up with Catholic teaching because it seems, in effect, to put the Pope or the magisterium above the scriptures.

[mitromney]

I'm still not sure what exactly is the difference between Sola Scriptura and the Catholic position. Trent says that Protestants end up just discrening everything individually, because Sola Scriptura means you end up with your personal interpretation being what's true. But... that's EXACTLY the same for Catholics... In Catholic Church there is no fixed list of infallible magisterial statements, or dogmas, or traditions, or council documents, or anything of sorts. When I asked Trent in Chat about what do I follow as a Catholic, he replied with "best place to start in Cathecism of Catholic Church" but then he said in his dabate with Gavin, that rejection of death penalty IS AN INCORRECT, fallible addition made by Pope Francis... even though it's included in the Cathecism! And elsewhere he said once again, that Cathecism is not infallible and that it quotes plenty of fallible documents... And it's not just second rate subjects that are at stake here... that clearly is the case even for the most essential subjects, like Salvation... Several consecutive Popes at this point, starting with John Paul 2, thru Benedict and Francis (JP2 is the one who signed joined declaration with Protestants), affirmed Luther's version of being saved by grace through faith alone, apart from works. But Horn rejects that, and says that if they really mean what they say, they are mistaken. OR SO HE SAYS. I have to literally either pick his version of Salvation, or what the Popes are tellling me here guys. It IS ALL UP TO ME and my personal judgement. Everything, including my very salvation. I see no difference between Sola Scriptura and Catholic view. In either case, I decide what I believe based on a set of ancient documents and my favorite, modern theologians that I choose to listen on my own. Catholics simply have a much larger buffet of documents to choose from. But which ones are infallible, and what exactly are they saying? That, once again, is ultimately for me to decide. In the end, it's all the same, only it's more confusing for Catholics. I really think I'll stick with the Bible, it's shorter and more consistent then 2000 years worth of often contradictory documents, councils, and what not... I just see no reason to pick Catholic version here...

[theneighborguy]

Dude, the muppet caught me off gaurd lol.