Scripture: The Only Infallible Standard

The historical meaning of sola Scriptura, which served as a formal principle of the Reformation, is that Scripture alone is the only certain, infallible norm by which all theology, doctrine, creeds (beliefs), practice, and morality of the Christian Church is to be regulated, in accordance with that which is ‘either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.’ This does not mean that the Scriptures constitute an exhaustive record of God’s special revelation but that they are the only special revelation that has been preserved, and as such, are sufficient to communicate clearly all truths necessary for man’s salvation and conduct of life. [1] [emphasis added]

As we begin part 12 of my Sola Scriptura series dealing with Scripture as the only infallible standard, there are some additional topics we need to discuss. One of those truths that we keep coming back to in this series is: it is Scripture that gives us the clearest understanding of God’s revelation to mankind, providing him with a clear understanding of what is needed for salvation. We saw that it is Scripture that leads us to salvation, and Scripture that provides our teaching, training and correction so that we can be complete in Christ and prepared for the work that God has already planned for us to do from long before we were ever born (2 Tim 3:15-17; Eph 4:12). And here is yet another couple of verses that show us once again that it is Scripture that is sufficient and that leads us to salvation.

John 20:30-31

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

Too often those that oppose Sola Scriptura demand that Protestants prove that all revelation revealed by God has been totally, completely and comprehensively inscripturated. This is an unfair and hypercritical request since those that demand this cannot themselves do what they ask of Protestants. I am sure that someone somewhere would make the broad statement that all revelation has been preserved by the combination of ‘tradition’ and ‘scripture’, but there is no possible way for that statement to be proven, and I would argue that John made it clear that that did not happen and was never intended to happen. John 21:25 says, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” So, John is making it clear a second time that he chose to be selective in what he wrote down in his gospel, not to withhold ‘revelation’ but to answer the most important and pressing question – ‘what must I do to be saved?’

But there are a couple of other conclusions that can be drawn from these verses. First, John’s Gospel, in and of itself, is sufficient for salvation. If no other gospel had been written, John’s Gospel reveals the nature of God and the path to salvation. Second, John’s Gospel gives the clearest message that Jesus was and is God the Son (John 1:1-3, 3:16; 8:58), and the redeemer of mankind, since there is no other name under heaven by which a man might be saved (Acts 4:12; John 6:36; 6:51; 14:6). All of this leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that Scripture alone is the God-breathed Word of God, and thus the infallible standard of God’s perfect truth to mankind.

Scripture Before the Church

Since the Reformation, Catholic apologists have attempted to use the argument that because the church is older than Scripture, it then has more authority than Scripture. Although this is meant to mean that the Church is older than the written New Testament books, this became a rather sloppy statement very quickly, since Scripture is the ‘Word of God’ and God and His Word are eternal. So, it should have been predicted when William Whitaker (1548-1595) in his book, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, answered as follows,

In the first place, I confess that there was a time when the word of God was not written, and that the church existed then : but it does not, therefore, follow that the church was more ancient than the word. For the doctrine was the same when not written, as it is now when it is written; and that was more ancient than all churches. For the word of God is the seed of the church. Now the seed is always more ancient than that progeny of which it is the seed. [2]

And what is this seed? The Old Testament Scriptures, but also the seed is the eternal Word of God, which encompasses the Old and New Testaments. But we can also easily answer this argument from the pages of Scripture itself. We already looked at 2 Pet 1:20-21, where we saw that Peter was saying (summarized by David King) that,

… Scripture originated, not with the Church, but that ‘holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Pet 1:20-21). It is nonsense to say that the Church has authority because she is the more ancient. God’s word is eternal. The truth revealed through Christ and the apostles is the same truth in the Old Testament. [3]

And we see this confirmed in Gal 3:5-14, the gospel Abraham received was the same gospel preached by the apostles.

• “... does He who provides you with the Spirit … do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” (Gal 3:5)
• “... Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Gal 3:6)
• “... it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.” (Gal 3:7)
• The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham …” (Gal 3:8)
• “... those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.” (Gal 3:9)
• “Now no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” (Gal 3:11)
• “... the Law is not of faith …” (Gal 3:12)
• “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us …” (Gal 3:13)
• “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” (Gal 3:14)

If the Gospel message of salvation by faith was preached to Abraham, then is the Church older than Scripture? Of course not. Besides being completely wrong, it’s a bit arrogant to say the Church is older than Scripture, older than the Word of God, older than God Himself, since God is eternal. Is that not the implication we come to with that statement?

Other Catholic apologists argue that because the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture, it then has ultimate authority, even over Scripture. Catholic apologist Philip Blosser has touted this as well,

Protestants already accept implicitly the principle that God can infallibly guide fallible humans to teach infallibly, both in oral teachings of the prophets and apostles, and in the writing of Scripture. But there is no reason why one should deny that God infallibly guided the process by which the Church 'discovered’ the canon any more than the process by which the Church ‘wrote’ the books in it. [4]

This is really absurd. First, we’ve already seen that the Catholic Church did not ‘decide’ what the canon of Scripture was. They acknowledged what the church had already recognized for two centuries. And by ‘church’ I mean the people of God. We have already seen how the majority of the New Testament was accepted immediately upon their writing and circulation. To then ‘claim’ the Catholic Church was responsible for ‘deciding’ what was and was not Scripture is to attempt to rewrite history. To prove this point, let’s take a look at what Augustine (AD 354-430) said in On Christian Doctrine concerning how the ‘Church’ determined what was canonical,

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal. [5]

What we see here is a way to evaluate disputed books, which was not the case for at least 22 of the 27 New Testament books. (See: The Canon: Defining, Dating and Quoting) By the middle of the 3rd century (that’s around AD 250), all 27 books of the New Testament were being quoted, which means they were accepted. But there were other books that some considered ‘canonical’, like the Didache (c. AD 70-100). The process described by Augustine above was used as much to separate out those that were not Scripture, as it was to affirmed those that were already considered Scripture. But there was never a time that the 4 Gospels, Acts, Romans and the rest of Paul’s epistles, as well as 1 Peter and 1 John were questioned. By the end of the 3rd century the current New Testament books were all accepted and being used as Scripture.

But it also shows that the Church did not act infallibly concerning the canon of Scripture. It’s not that the process wasn’t a good attempt to make the best judgment, because it was. But ‘infallibility’ suggests the ability to select by God inspired divine insight. That is clearly not what we see represented from Augustine. And to further prove this point, the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397), which Augustine presided over, canonized the Apocryphal book of ‘I Esdras’ as an Old Testament book of Scripture. Unfortunately for the case of infallibility, the Council of Trent, in the 16th century, rejected this book as canonical, and with it went any claim of infallibility in the selection process of the canon of Scripture.

And the problems with Blosser’s quote above don’t stop there. As David King put it,

We are not obliged to accept the acts of fallible men just because God moved to record his word infallibly through them. The Jews were the instruments used of God to record the Old Testament Scriptures infallibly. That does not mean we are to follow the Jews of later generations as if they were infallible guides in every area of life. [6]

We also see this put into practice in Gal 2:14, where Paul recounts how he confronted Peter (which we also see in Acts) about not being truthful about the Gospel when he attempted to compel the gentiles to live like Jews, which is a violation of God’s ‘justification by faith’ in Christ. Both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) acknowledged that Paul’s reprimand of Peter had implications for the Gospel message of justification that was supposed to be preached. To be forced to live as a Jew would mean we are no longer ‘justified by faith’ but by the law. This was so important to God that the Holy Spirit compelled Paul to write,

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Gal 1:8-9)

And this gospel message is at the heart of the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics.

Another issue with Blosser’s view is that Rom 3:2 tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the ‘oracles of God’, which is the Old Testament Scriptures. So the Catholic Church erred in attempting to decide what was and was not canonical in the Old Testament. This is a very strong argument why Protestants reject the Apocryphal Old Testament books the Catholic Church canonized.

Blosser also states that the Catholic Church wrote Scripture. I just have one question — which books did she write? The answer to that question is none of them.

And lastly, according to Blosser, if God perfectly guided imperfect humans (apostles) in the past, it must also be true that the Catholic Church can do the same today. Jerome (AD 347-420) disagreed, “No, for I know that a difference must be made between the Apostles and all other preachers. The former always speak the truth; but the latter being men sometimes go astray.” [7] So as you can see, Jerome did not accept the modern concept of the infallibility of Catholic Church teaching. And Protestants agree with Jerome. Guided by God, the Scriptures were infallibly created by the Apostles or those directly associated with the Apostles (i.e., Luke and Mark). But when the last Apostle died, so did the ability to create infallible Scripture. Nor was the Church gifted with infallibility to replace the Apostles, and we know this to be true because no church father has ever claimed to be of the same caliber as any Apostle. Without exception, each and everyone claimed to be far inferior to the Apostles.

Apostolic Succession

Catholic apologists also appeal to ‘‘apostolic succession’’ in an attempt to justify their concept of ‘tradition’. They claim that the bishops of the Catholic Church were the direct successors to the Apostles. This succession is said to be not just of Church leadership and offices but of doctrine as well. But this is something that is not supported by the teachings of the Church fathers. The following is a summary of what Tertullian (AD 155-220) said about it,

Tertullian spoke of churches in his day that had published lists of their bishops by succession to show that their first bishop was a successor of an apostle. But as he pointed out, the test of succession was not the voice of the present day Church, but of doctrine. [8] Tertullian recognized that churches were being founded in his day that were not planted by ‘apostles or apostolic men.’ Yet the ultimate test of their apostolic nature depended, not on their lineage, but on doctrine. And this, he maintained, must be shown from the Scriptures. For it is from ‘the law and the prophets’ which ‘she [i.e., the Church] unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith.’ [9]

This question of the founding of a specific church was even true in the Apostles’ days as the Colossian church was not founded by Paul or any other Apostle (See ‘Reason for Letter’ in my blog, Colossians - Introduction and Outline), and was a prime example of what Terullian wrote about.

And Tertullian was not the only church father to point this out. Gregory of Nazianzus (AD 329-390) said much the same,

For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense. [10]

It was the adherence to apostolic doctrine that was important and considered true succession, and failing to follow or pass on true doctrine invalidated any concept of succession.

So the assertion that ‘all the early churches function as though apostolic succession is given,’ which depended on ‘union with the bishops and with Peter’ is contrary to the actual view of the Church fathers. They believed that true apostolicity and apostolic succession was demonstrated by conformity to the doctrines and faith of holy Scripture. [11]

As David Wells, a senior research professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, points out in his book, ‘No Place for Truth’,

To be a believer, then as later, meant believing what the apostles taught. It is in this sense that apostolic succession is a New Testament truth. Believers succeed the apostles as they accept what the apostles taught. It is a succession not of ecclesiastical [church] power as the Church of Rome teaches but of doctrine. [12]

If the Catholic concept of apostolic succession were true, then how does one explain the bishops and popes of Rome that have embraced and been condemned for heresy? Where is the guarantee of Church holiness, righteousness and purity touted by Catholicism in their concept of Apostolic succession?

Then, there is John 8:33.

They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?” (John 8:33)

The Pharisees appealed to their lineage and succession as descendants of Abraham. Yet Jesus answered them saying,

• If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. (John 8:39b)
• Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. (John 8:43)
• He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God. (John 8:47)
• Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad. (John 8:56)

Where the Jews saw everything through the lens of their lineage passed from generation to generation, Jesus was trying to get them to see it wasn’t about succession from one person to another, but about the doctrine of ‘faith’. Is this not what we see in Rom 4:2-3, 9, 13, 16, Gal 3:6-8, Heb 11:8, and Jas 2:23?

There are no guarantees of salvation just because of your lineage, or the family you grew up in, just like there is no guarantee of godliness, righteousness or holiness simply because some mantle was passed to you, like the bishop of Rome. True succession is not of men or offices but of the true doctrine that the Apostles taught.

Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. (Gal 3:7)

And one final thought. These church fathers were men; they were not infallible men, just men, trying to follow Christ, trying to preach the Word of God and trying to defend their faith against the onslaught of false teachings and false religions in their day. They rendered their opinion on many topics, and some of their opinions were right and some were wrong. And those that were normally right formulated their opinions on only one sure thing, Scripture, because Scripture is the only infallible norm or standard for the Christian. And when they strayed from that standard, their opinions drifted into fanciful ideas that had no basis in Scripture and therefore no basis in truth.

Infallible Scripture, Fallible Church

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. (2 Cor 11:13)

What we do not see within the pages of Scripture is that the Church is an infallible institution. She is not and she knows that she is not. From Acts to Revelations, there is a theme in most of the epistles of exhortations and warnings against false teachers and false teachings making their way into the churches to lead believers astray. We see in Act 20:28-31 where Paul exhorts and warns church leaders to ‘be on guard’ because ‘savage wolves will come in’ to the ‘church’ and that ‘from among your own selves’ false teachers will arise. This same message is in 2 Cor 11:13-15, Gal 1:6-9, 1 Tim 6:20-21, 2 Tim 3:13, and 2 Pet 2:1. And it should be pointed out that all of these apostolic warnings came during a time when the Church was still receiving the preaching and teaching of the Apostles. So, if Paul and the other apostles were warning believers while they were still alive, how much more should we be on our guard against the false teachers of our day?

What this demonstrates is that the gospel in Paul’s time was a completed message which would not be subject to ‘development’ over time, in the sense that there could be dogmas added to the truth of the faith which were not clearly taught by the apostles. It was a body of truth whose contents were defended by the apostles and which were preserved in the New Testament epistles. This truth is reiterated in Jude 3 where we read that we are to contend for ‘the faith once for all delivered to the saints.’ [13]

In Revelations, John wrote to the seven churches in Asia minor about their tolerating doctrinal and moral heresies (Rev 2-3). As David King points out concerning these seven churches,

These Churches all enjoyed the presence of the risen, glorified Christ who walked ‘in the midst of these seven golden lampstands,’ (Rev 2:1), yet even the presence of Christ did not preclude their vulnerability to moral and doctrinal heresy! Did Christ give them assurance of protection against doctrinal fallibility simply because they were members of apostolic churches? Clearly not! [14]

The words of Scripture do not need to be ‘added to’ (Rev 22:18; Deut 4:2; Prov 30:6) as if they are deficient in some way or missing necessary and important doctrines that somehow evaded the Apostles in the first century. These truths in Scripture need to be followed faithfully (Gal 1:11-12), and guarded and defended from corruption and perversion by false teachers and their false teachings (Act 20:28; 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12; 2 Tim 4:15, 2 Pet 3:17; Luke 17:3). This is what we see from Paul in his epistles and in John’s Revelation.

Just as we see in our day, there were opportunists in the first century that would see a way to deceive others by proclaiming to be ‘apostles’ and begin to extort money from believers to line their pockets. Some of these opportunists were Gnostics that infiltrated the church to share their ‘gospel’, which was another gospel altogether. And there were people in the church with philosophies that perverted the gospel message with all sorts of speculations that served to allegorize the gospel message. And that is what we see in 2 Cor 11:13-15; Col 2:8.

And the history of the Church after the apostolic age is no better. Bishops throughout Christendom, including at Rome, were corrupted by heresies at one point in time or another. And we have seen that the church fathers warned believers to only follow leaders (bishops) if their teachings followed Scripture. And if they did not, they were told to reject those leaders. Church fathers did not believe that the Church was infallible. How could they, with what they saw and documented? They understood that bishops and councils could err.

Should we then blindly accept teachings that are claimed to be the result of unwritten and unverifiable tradition simply because they are claimed to have come through apostolic succession? The only answer to that question is an emphatic ‘no.’

And as we have seen in virtually all of the Sola Scriptura series so far, the church fathers pointed back to Scripture as the only infallible source for true doctrine, for the faith and practice of the church. Being God-breathed, it is Scripture alone that is infallible, and it is the only norm, the only standard that the church can and should follow to remain pure and true to the doctrines that Jesus and the Holy Spirit revealed to mankind.

But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say, For an argument when confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly proved.

Athenasius (AD 297-373)

Church history has repeatedly and clearly proven one thing: once the highest view of Scripture is abandoned by any theologian, group, denomination, or church, the downhill slide in both theology and practice is inevitable.

James White

Footnotes

[1] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 129.
[2] William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Forgotten Books, Classic Reprint Series, photocopy of published work, 1588), pp. 331-332.
[3] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 130-131.
[4] Not by Scripture Alone, Robert Sungenis, Editor (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), p. 62, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 132.
[5] Philip Schaaf, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Vol 11, Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 8. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org.
[6] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 133.
[7] Philip Schaaf, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Vol 6, Jerome, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 82, Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria 7. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org.
[8] Philip Schaaf, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 32. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org. I chose to provide the summary of what Tertullian said, rather than the quote. See also Footnote #9.
[9] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 136. This passage also quotes from, Philip Schaaf, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 36. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org.
[10] Philip Schaaf, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Vol 6, Gregory of Nazianzus, On the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. Ch 21. Christian Classics Ethereal Library,  https://www.ccel.org.
[11] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 136. The quote inside of this quote is, Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Robert Sungesis, Editor (Santa Barbra: Queenship Publishing Co, 1997) p. 194.
[12] David F. Wells, No Place for Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 102-103, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 137.
[13] William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1995), pp. 18-19.
[14] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 138.

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

For the best treatment of Sola Scriptura in book form, please consider investing in the 3 volume set of: David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001). It's the guide I'm using to integrate some of my own study on this important subject. This book set is inexpensive and worth every penny.