The Bible Contradicts It: Argument #2 Against Sola Scriptura

In our countdown of the nine arguments against Sola Scriptura, we are now at argument two, the Bible contradicts Sola Scriptura. Is it just that Cameron seems to think that it does since he is predisposed to reject Sola Scriptura and I think it does not because I may be predisposed to accept Sola Scriptura? Is it only our biases based on the churches we attend, or does Scripture help us understand which perspective is correct?

If Scripture is the Word of God, can it really contradict the concept of Sola Scriptura and show that Scripture is NOT our only infallible source for faith and practice as Cameron’s argument charges? Is there Scripture that definitively shows that Scripture is not the only infallible source for the Christian’s faith and practice? Are there reasons to believe that there are other infallible sources that can be relied upon? Are there examples of the ‘magisterium’ in Scripture and do they show its ability to infallibly interpret Scripture? Does Scripture show that it needs an interpreter? These are the questions I will attempt to address in this rebuttal to Cameron’s argument that the Bible contradicts Sola Scriptura.

The Argument: The Bible Contradicts Sola Scriptura

This is the transcript of what Cameron said in his YouTube video for argument #2,

Argument number two: the Bible itself contradicts Sola Scriptura. All right, so for this next argument let's zero in on something really interesting: what Scripture itself says about Scripture. Does the Bible ever explicitly teach that Scripture is the only infallible authority for faith and practice? No. In fact, it repeatedly points us in another direction toward, authoritative tradition and a living teaching authority within the church. Let's start with a verse you've probably heard before, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul commands, "So then brothers stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us either by our spoken word or by our letter." Paul doesn't limit authoritative teaching to his writings here. He explicitly includes oral teaching, what Catholics call sacred Tradition. But that's just scratching the surface. Just one chapter later Paul doubles down issuing another very strong command, “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6) Paul even threatens disciplinary action if this apostolic tradition is ignored. (See verse 14) But notice this isn't some casual encouragement, it's a binding apostolic command. And Paul's not alone, he instructs Timothy, "What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Timothy 2:2) Did you catch that the gospel wasn't just written down, it's carefully guarded and transmitted orally from one generation to the next. And we see it again in his letter to the Thessalonians. “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13) The apostles clearly expected believers to trust their spoken teachings as God breathed, authoritative and binding even when not yet committed to writing. And remember, Paul makes it clear this tradition isn't something he invented, it's something he himself received and then passed along as he says famously in, 1 Corinthians 15:3 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received." Now here's what that means practically. Authoritative teaching existed as a living, breathing reality before any New Testament texts were even written. The early church was guided, not just by a book, but by a living apostolic voice. Speaking of that living voice, Jesus himself explicitly set this expectation when he told his apostles "The one who hears you, hears me." (Luke 10:16) Christ didn't say, "Whoever reads your writings but whoever hears you." And this demonstrates the authoritative teaching isn't limited to written text, it's entrusted to human beings who bear divine authority. We see this vividly illustrated in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council where the apostles and elders authoritatively decide on doctrinal questions and their decision is then delivered to local churches. Acts 16:4 records the outcome explicitly. “As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.” Notice a living magisterial voice that resolved disputes and instructed the entire church exactly how Catholics see the church's teaching authority operating today. But wait, there's more! Consider the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Philip encounters him reading scripture and when asked if he understands it, he says honestly, "How can I unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:31) Here is a scripture itself admitting that it needs authoritative interpretation. Left alone text can be twisted or misunderstood, a point Peter himself warns against explicitly. “There are some things in Paul's writings that are hard to understand which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16) This strongly implies a divinely appointed teaching authority, what Catholics call the magisterium, to safeguard against doctrinal chaos. And doctrinal chaos is exactly what we've seen result from private interpretation under Sola Scriptura. And let's remember the big picture promise of the Holy Spirit guiding the church collectively. Jesus assures his disciples in John's gospel, “But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the father will send in my name will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” “He will guide you into all the truth.” (John 14:26, 16:13) This promise is given to the church as a community, a collective entity, not to every isolated individual interpreting scripture alone. Scripture itself points us toward a church guided by the spirit, not just a book interpreted privately. In fact, scripture explicitly tells us it's incomplete. John concludes his gospel by admitting explicitly, “Now there are many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25) Similarly, the Apostle John openly states "He has much more to teach the church but he'd prefer to communicate it orally. “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face." (2 John 12) Finally let's look at the Old Testament's own pattern, Okay? God consistently establishes authority through embodied human mediators: prophets, priests and judges who taught authoritatively and resolved disputes, like in Deuteronomy 17:8-12. Even the flawed Pharisees taught from Moses's seat with binding authority in Matthew 23:2-3. Wouldn't we expect the New Testament to continue that incarnational logic of authority through a visible authoritative community rather than text alone? But here's the point, okay. When you let scripture speak for itself it consistently leads beyond the idea of scripture alone. It pushes us toward an authoritative tradition safeguarded by a living magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit and entrusted to the church as Christ's body. The biblical pattern from Sinai's courts to the Jerusalem council is not isolated believers interpreting texts privately, but the word embedded in a living authoritative community. Here's why this argument is so forceful. If Sola Scriptura were true the Bible itself would clearly articulate it. Yet we find passages affirming the exact opposite. The church in Acts makes binding decisions in Acts 15. Paul endorses tradition by word of mouth in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and in 1 Corinthians 11:2. And scripture never claims exclusivity as the sole authority. What we actually see is scripture, tradition and the magisterium working in harmony, a complete system not an incomplete one. That's why this is our second strongest argument Scripture teaches that Sola Scriptura is false.

Cameron's video: 28:23 [emphasis added]

Tradition is Not a Separate Set of Truths

Let’s start by taking the verses specifically chosen because the word or the concept of ‘tradition’ and/or the ‘magisterium’ is seen or assumed to be present in them, specifically, 2 Th 2:15; 2 Th 3:6, 14; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Th 2:13; 1 Cor 15:3; and Luke 10:16. Once I discuss these verses as a whole, I’ll address each individually. Here are those verses referenced in the Cameron’s presentation,

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Th 2:15)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. (2 Th 3:6)

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. (2 Th 3:14)

The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2)

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. (1 Th 2:13)

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (1 Cor 15:3)

“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

These verses were specifically chosen to create a narrative for the purpose of affirming Cameron’s belief that ‘tradition’ and the ‘magisterium’ were present in Apostolic days to explain what he presupposes Scripture cannot answer. But as this blog series has shown repeatedly, these two, ‘tradition’ and the ‘magisterium,’ are very late accretions (i.e., gradual external additions or developments) where Catholicism has rewritten history to insert both back into early Church history, after the fact.

What Cameron seems to forget is that the Gospel was given to the Apostles and they were specifically and uniquely gifted with the ability to teach and preach that Gospel infallibly (Acts 2:42; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Gal 1:11-12; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Th 2:13; Mat 28:18-20; Act 1:8; Acts 5:12; 2 Cor 11:5; Eph 2:20). That means that whatever the Apostles preached or taught - whether written or spoken - was the Word of God. And what does history demonstrate to us? Once the Apostles died, their unique position and abilities ceased, meaning no one else has ever had the ability to speak and/or write the Gospel message infallibly since their deaths. So, quoting verses that the Apostles wrote is not a threat to Sola Scriptura, even if they mention oral teachings. Quite the contrary, those quotes prove the truthfulness of Sola Scriptura. And what’s more, the Scriptures are the only place in which the teachings of the Apostles are preserved.

So, when a verse like 2 Th 2:15 is used to justify the meaning of a term like ‘tradition’ that was redefined in the 16th century [1], the Protestant should not let this kind of revisionism confuse them. For Paul, the traditions he taught were “based on what he himself had been taught by revelation from Jesus Christ, which was the common faith of the early Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3).” [2] Like the other Apostles that had been taught by Jesus Himself, Paul spent three years being instructed in the faith (Gal 1:17-18). This wasn’t some new revelation, or something the Apostles forgot to write down and thus meant to be kept as an oral teaching to be handed down separately for the last 2000 years. That, quite frankly, is ludicrous and something that a number of previous blogs in this series demonstrated. “But what about the spoken teachings mentioned in this verse?!” you say. Well, the Apostles were alive! So, of course they taught in a spoken, oral manner. And what Paul said in 2 Th 2:15 has absolutely nothing to do with an oral set of teachings that have been supposedly passed along through history for the last 2000 years.

And to make this point stand out even more. Remember what the Catholic Priest Mitch Pacwa said in his debate with James White: the only words of Jesus and the Apostles that exist are those captured in the pages of Scripture. (See: When Did It Become True: Argument #4 Against Sola Scriptura) Again, what that means is that it is pretty hard to have a set of separate authoritative apostolic teachings (i.e., traditions) not recorded in Scripture, when the Catholic Church admits that it does not have any to draw from. Something else that needs to be pointed out is that Cameron cannot substantiate his claims for this separate ‘tradition.’ It is assumed to be true but cannot be shown to exist in Church history, although any mention of the word ‘tradition’ in early Church literature is assumed to be that proof. Since we looked at some of these assumed references in this series, we know those do not prove that case.

So, let’s look at some of the verses Cameron used for his case.

2 Th 2:15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Th 2:15)

Cameron said the following about this verse,

Does the Bible ever explicitly teach that Scripture is the only infallible authority for faith and practice? No. In fact, it repeatedly points us in another direction toward, authoritative tradition and a living teaching authority within the church. Let's start with a verse you've probably heard before, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 … Paul doesn't limit authoritative teaching to his writings here. He explicitly includes oral teaching, what Catholics call sacred Tradition.

Cameron is asking a good question but provides no real reason why he believes that Scripture is not the only infallible authority. So, let’s try a different approach to get him the correct answer. Let’s start with: does the Bible teach that Scripture is “an” infallible authority? Yes, it actually does, very explicitly in 2 Tim 3:16-17.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV)

If Scripture is ‘breathed out by God’ then it is literally His words spoken or breathed out to mankind. How is that anything other than an infallible authority? When God speaks to us, His words to us are infallible because they are the words of Almighty God to His creation. They have to be infallible because of who spoke them.

So, does the Bible say that Scripture is the only infallible authority? Well, technically no, not in those exact words. But at least we do know that it is “an” infallible authority. So, since the Catholic Church believes in other infallible authorities, does the Bible ever say that the Church is an infallible authority? Technically, no. And as we’ve seen in previous blogs, we know that the Church is NOT infallible since some of its decisions have been fallibly decided, which makes the Church technically a fallible institution.

Does the Bible say that ‘tradition’ is an infallible authority? Again, technically, no. But to properly answer this question, I need to define what ‘traditions’ in 2 Th 2:15 means, according to the Catholic Church. For Catholicism, ‘tradition’ is a separate body of infallible teachings not found in Scripture, which have been handed down orally from the Apostles through the last 2000 years of Church history. They are teachings that the Catholic Church will not define but emphatically believe exist. And as the blogs I linked in footnote [1] demonstrate, we know that the ‘tradition’ the Catholic Church believes in does not exist.

As my Sola Scriptura series has demonstrated over and over, the ’traditions’ referred to here are the teachings of the Gospel, whether taught orally or in writing. That means, ‘tradition’ is not a separate source of authoritative apostolic teachings, it simply refers to the content of the teaching already given by the Apostles which are now encapsulated in the Scriptures we have today.

Does the Bible say that church councils are infallible authorities? Technically no. We see that the Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15) made a decision that was later disseminated throughout the churches. Is this a decision by a council or by the Apostles? The dispute was about whether the Gentiles should be required to be circumcised, and it was the Apostles that stated that they should not be, even if others disagreed with the Apostles. And who was charged with teaching and preaching the Gospel? That’s right, it was the responsibility of the Apostles. So, the question becomes: is Acts 15 about a council and its doctrinal decisions or about the authority of the Apostles to teach the Gospel they were given by Christ?

There are one of two possible problems here concerning church councils. First, if we are talking about councils, we know that later councils contradicted earlier ones and thus each other, so that, by definition, means church councils cannot be infallible. And second, if you try to play the ‘only ecumenical councils are infallible’ card, then you have a different problem to solve because the Gospel had been preached in other regions, not just Jerusalem and the other churches were not part of the ‘ecumenical decision.’ That means the Jerusalem council was a regional council, not an ecumenical council. And remember, if you try to play the Apostle card for this second problem, then you are admitting that Acts 15 was an apostolic authority issue and not a church council. So, no matter how you look at it, councils are not infallible.

Now, just in case you thought the Jerusalem council was about the Apostles, then were the Apostles as human beings infallible in all they said and did? Again, technically, no. They were infallible when communicating via preaching, teaching and writing the Gospel and rules for setting up churches. We see in Scripture that Peter made mistakes, as is documented by Paul in Galatians 1. So, they were fallible human beings whom God enabled to preach, teach and write infallibly. No matter how we look at councils, we end up with, ‘councils are not infallible.’

Now, we have the information we need to answer Cameron’s question,

Does the Bible ever explicitly teach that Scripture is the only infallible authority for faith and practice?

Since Scripture does state that it is an infallible authority and since there are no other infallible authorities mentioned in Scripture, and history demonstrates that the other supposed ‘infallible’ authorities identified by the Catholic Church are NOT infallible, that must mean that Scripture is the only infallible authority it mentions. Therefore, the answer to his question is, Yes, Scripture is the only infallible source.

Why He Needs Tradition

So, we’ve thrown a gigantic wrench into the beginning of Cameron’s argument. Quite frankly, it’s enough of a problem for it that the rest of his argument has already become invalid. It’s obvious at this point that Paul is not pointing us to a separate authority under the heading of ‘tradition’ but to the content of what was being taught and would later be inscripturated within the Gospels and Epistles. Nor does it point to a ‘living teaching authority’ but, again, it points to the content of the Apostles’ teachings – the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

What this does is uncover the biases needed to justify unbiblical teachings. Why do I say something like that? Because one could never come up with the Catholic Church’s understanding of salvation within the pages of Scripture as it requires adherence to seven sacraments (baptism, confirmation, communion, confession, marriage, holy orders (i.e., priesthood), and anointing the sick) which go far beyond what Scripture says and teaches. And those don’t include the other doctrines and dogmas not found in Scripture, like papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas, purgatory and indulgences. But according to Scripture, salvation is by faith alone and in Christ alone. That’s it, none of these other things are required. But if I add sacred and infallible ‘tradition’ into the mix, then I can create all these other required doctrines because no one can prove that these other teachings are forbidden since they are known to not exist in Scripture. With something like sacred and infallible ‘tradition’ a church like the Catholic Church can create any kind of doctrine or dogma they please. And refusing to produce the list of ‘traditions’ they say exist, keeps their doctrines and dogmas shielded from any examination into their authenticity. And this is a huge problem since neither the Scriptures nor early church history record these other doctrines as ‘required’ for salvation or required to be believed (except for baptism and communion). 

2 Th 3:6, 14

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. (2 Th 3:6)

If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. (2 Th 3:14)

Cameron then said this about these verses,

Paul even threatens disciplinary action if this apostolic tradition is ignored. (See verse 14) But notice this isn't some casual encouragement, it's a binding apostolic command.

Once again, the ‘traditions’ here are the teachings about the Gospel and establishing churches that they received from Paul, whether orally or written in letters. And since Jesus had taught the Apostles these things, it was the responsibility of the Apostles to teach others these very same teachings (Mat 28:19-20; 2 Tim 2:2; Col 3:16; Tit 2:3-4; Prov 22:6; John 13:15). So, is it really a surprise that Paul ‘threatens disciplinary action if this apostolic tradition is ignored’? And since these oral teachings are the very same teachings that were written in the Scriptures we have today, not obeying the written word carries this very same disciplinary action, if ignored. Again, this is NOT a separate body of infallible extrabiblical content not found in Scripture, it is what we have in the Scriptures right now!

I want to remind the reader again of what I said above – the only words of Jesus or the Apostles we have are those that are found in the pages of the New Testament we have in our Bibles today. That by definition means that there is no extrabiblical orally transmitted ‘tradition’ that carries the same authority as Scripture does.

2 Tim 2:2

The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2)

Cameron follows with this,

Did you catch that the gospel wasn't just written down, it's carefully guarded and transmitted orally from one generation to the next.

Shockingly, Cameron is correct, the Gospel is what they heard from Paul, and they were supposed to entrust that message to those who would be able to teach it to others. And that is also why we have that Gospel message in written form today, so that it can be preached and taught to people today. Paul was speaking to the people that actually heard him preach and teach in person, so how else would he respond?

1 Th 2:13

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. (1 Th 2:13)

Cameron’s commentary,

The apostles clearly expected believers to trust their spoken teachings as God breathed, authoritative and binding even when not yet committed to writing.

Of course they expected that, it was from a living Apostle who taught the Gospel as received from Jesus. The Apostles are no longer with us but their message was written down for us, and we are expected to trust these very same teachings. These are not a separate and unknown body of teachings since they are the very same ones we have within the pages of Scripture today. But hey! At least Cameron admitted that the oral teachings referred to here were committed to writing. Some unexpected progress in the right direction.

1 Cor 15:3

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (1 Cor 15:3)

Cameron adds,

Now here's what that means practically. Authoritative teaching existed as a living, breathing reality before any New Testament texts were even written. The early church was guided, not just by a book, but by a living apostolic voice.

Once again, what Protestant does not believe this? And, guess what? We are guided by that very same apostolic voice, except now it speaks the very same message to us from the pages of Scripture.

Luke 10:16

“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16)

Cameron explains this verse as,

And this demonstrates the authoritative teaching isn't limited to written text, it's entrusted to human beings who bear divine authority.

Cameron’s point here seems to be that this authoritative teaching is the extrabiblical ‘tradition’ the Catholic Church says was passed down through church history via the Apostles. But there’s a problem with this citation. This was said by Jesus to the 70 disciples He sent out, not exclusively to the 12 disciples who would later become the Apostles. And the same thing is true for us today, since we are sent out as well. This is not some earth-shattering interpretation that Cameron has shared. In context with the case he is attempting to make, his statement doesn’t prove anything since Scripture contains the same message as Jesus gave verbally to the 70. Those that listen to our preaching today are listening to Jesus because the Holy Spirit lives in us and speaks through us when we have learned the Gospel via the Scriptures (Mat 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8; John 20:21; 2 Tim 4:2).

Magisterial Council at Jerusalem?

We see this vividly illustrated in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council where the apostles and elders authoritatively decide on doctrinal questions and their decision is then delivered to local churches. Acts 16:4 records the outcome explicitly. “As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.” Notice a living magisterial voice that resolved disputes and instructed the entire church exactly how Catholics see the church's teaching authority operating today.

In this part of his reply, Cameron attempts to say that the Jerusalem council was the first example of the ‘magisterium’ exercising its authority. But let’s look at this a little more closely. First, I would refer the reader back to my comments above for 2 Th 2:15. What was the decision that was made? It was about circumcision, right? Now we know that it was an Old Testament rite, and according to Paul it was not binding on the Christian, whether Jewish or Gentile because there are not two Gospel messages, one for the Jew and one for the Gentile, there is only one. And what was Paul again? That’s right, the Apostle to the Gentiles, but he was also a former Pharisee and knew the Scriptures inside out.

Circumcision symbolized the Covenant that God made with Abraham, that he and his descendants belonged to God and separated them from other nations. It was an outward sign, but its true intent was to signify an inward change, a circumcision of the heart, which is to say, an inward changed heart that loved God with every fiber of one’s being. (Deut 30:6, Eze 36:26) But the Jews had missed the whole purpose of circumcision and their arrogance as ‘God’s people’ prevented them from understanding its true meaning.

For the Jew, if it was a sign of belonging to God, then it was a sign of their salvation. For the Christian, however, salvation was not in a Covenant sign or an outward act that our parents had performed on us, but in a personal expression of repentance of sin and a turning to God in faith and embracing the understanding that Jesus had died for our sins. This confession of faith is what saves us, and we have new life because Jesus was raised from the dead. Without the finished work of Christ on the cross, we have no hope of salvation. And, our parents cannot make that profession of faith for us, only we can do that because it's about the heart behind the action. God does not require or want our adherence to rituals, He wants our hearts, our minds, and our souls to love Him more than anything else in our lives. It has never been about an external act or ritual. God wants all of us, or nothing at all. There is no middle ground here. [3]

So, the Jewish Christian wanted to force this Old Testament covenant act upon the gentile Christians and the Apostles firmly rejected this requirement.

Now Cameron is much like the Jewish Christians because he completely misses the point of the Apostles correction in Acts 15. It was not about circumcision, it was about salvation, the single most important thing Jesus taught his disciples – salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, which is one of the biggest issues that has plagued the Catholic Church to this day. This was not about a council in Jerusalem, ecumenical or otherwise, this was something much more fundamental than that. And it wasn’t about a living ‘magisterial’ voice to infallibly decide all doctrinal disputes. It was about the Apostles correcting the Christian Judaizers that were corrupting the faith that they were charged with and specifically enabled to deliver. It was about the role and the place of faith in the life of a Christian, just like it was about faith in the life of the Jew. What did Gen 15:6 say?

Then he [Abram] believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. (Gen 15:6)

But that is not the only place, as we see it throughout the New Testament. See: Rom 4:3-9, Rom 4:20-25, Gal 3:6-14, Heb 11:8 and Jas 2:23. The good news of the Gospel was always about faith and the New Testament makes it clear that our faith is to be placed in Christ alone and His finished work. So, this was not an example of the ‘magisterial’ voice deciding disputes but about the authority of the Apostles to teach the Gospel message without being forced to impose Jewish ceremonial law upon either Jewish and Gentile believers. It was the Apostles who were entrusted with that message, and their right and authority to correct any errors that might creep into the Church.

Philip and Acts 8

But wait, there's more! Consider the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Philip encounters him reading scripture and when asked if he understands it, he says honestly, "How can I unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:31) Here is a scripture itself admitting that it needs authoritative interpretation.

It would really be more helpful if Cameron actually bothered to read Acts 8 and find out some additional information about the eunuch in that verse before assuming that Scripture is nearly impossible to understand without the aid of the ‘magisterium.’ So, let’s do that work for him. Of course, as a Catholic and even a Catholic apologist, he is not allowed to exegete Scripture, since he is not a bishop, so Cameron could only give his ‘private judgment’ of what it means, which seems to be exactly what he did. But since we, as Protestants, are not under that same prohibition, we can easily bring the proper clarity needed.

Take a moment to read verses 26 through 40 of chapter 8. So, the eunuch in this chapter was a man of high rank within the queen’s court and men in this type of position were emasculated. He was most likely not a Jewish but a Gentile convert, since he is on his way to Jerusalem and, according to Deut 23:1, he, being a eunuch, would not have been allowed to “enter the assembly of the LORD.” So, if a convert, then he would not have grown up reading and being taught the Old Testament Scriptures as a Jew would have been, so is it really that odd that he needed help understanding Isaiah? Also, Isaiah, and specifically what the eunuch was reading, was about Jesus and as we know, the Jews completely misunderstood who the Messiah would be. The Jews expected a conquering king even though they were told over and over in the Old Testament that their Messiah would be a suffering savior.

I would also point out that Philip was a deacon in the church at Jerusalem, not a bishop or a priest, and certainly not an Apostle or a pope. So, according to the Catholic Church the type of instruction Philip was providing the eunuch was only allowed to come from a bishop or above. So, was Philip only providing his ‘private judgment’ since he was not allowed to exegete Scripture? Do you see some of the problems that arise when a church’s dogmas get in the way of the clear teachings of Scripture?

Just because the eunuch needed help understanding Isaiah does not mean that a ‘magisterium’ was needed to provide the understanding that is somehow believed to be missing from Scripture. If you will remember, the Jews should have understood the verses describing the Messiah they were waiting for. Even Jesus had to explain it to his own disciples because they didn’t understand either. And the exact same thing was required for the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35).

Again, this is not about a special organization with the mysterious power to interpret Scripture that no one else is allowed to have. The Old Testament is all about Jesus, from Genesis to Malachi, which Christians can see but Jews cannot (John 5:39; Acts 10:43; Acts 8:35; 1 Pet 1:10-12; Mark 4:11). Jesus unlocked its meaning to His disciples, and in turn His disciples have unlocked it for us.

But Paul’s Too Hard to Understand!

Left alone text can be twisted or misunderstood, a point Peter himself warns against explicitly. “There are some things in Paul's writings that are hard to understand which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16) This strongly implies a divinely appointed teaching authority, what Catholics call the magisterium, to safeguard against doctrinal chaos. And doctrinal chaos is exactly what we've seen result from private interpretation under Sola Scriptura.

Cameron seems to think that since there were ‘some’ things that Paul wrote that certain people twisted and misunderstood, that only a ‘magisterium’ would be able to bring the proper correction needed to restore understanding of Scripture. But Peter did not say that everything Paul wrote was hard to understand, only that the ignorant and unstable used that as an excuse to twist what he wrote ‘to their own destruction.’ Also, the doctrinal chaos he referred to was started by the Catholic Church since they were the ones that changed the understanding of salvation by adding a bunch of unbiblical sacraments that would need to be believed and practiced for one to attain salvation. The divinely appointed teaching authority Cameron refers to are the Apostles, who left us with 27 books in the New Testament to understand all that Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark (via Peter), Luke (via Paul), Jude and John taught via Scripture.

A Helper for Me but Not for Thee

And let's remember the big picture promise of the Holy Spirit guiding the church collectively. Jesus assures his disciples in John's gospel, “But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the father will send in my name will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” “He will guide you into all the truth.” (John 14:26, 16:13) This promise is given to the church as a community, a collective entity, not to every isolated individual interpreting scripture alone. Scripture itself points us toward a church guided by the spirit, not just a book interpreted privately.

Does Cameron not understand that all believers have received the Holy Spirit? The Spirit was given to guide the ‘church’, but the ‘church’ is the body of Christ, to people of God, not an ecclesiastical organization. But to Cameron’s partial point, the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into all truth and brought back to their remembrance the things that Jesus taught them. This is exactly what John 14:26 and 16:13 refer to in their proper context, and these truths were subsequently inscripturated into the 27 books of the New Testament. And now, the people of God, have that very same Holy Spirit and when we seek God with all our hearts, we have that very same guidance described in these verses. And please do not misconstrue this into meaning that we can write Scripture because that was reserved for the Apostles.

Scripture Tells Us Its Incomplete

In fact, scripture explicitly tells us it's incomplete. John concludes his gospel by admitting explicitly, “Now there are many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

This might be the strangest thing that Cameron has said in this entire presentation. In some respects, it should make you question his ability to function as a Catholic apologist since no self-respecting apologist would attempt to use this line of reasoning.

Are we to assume that the Catholic Church can provide a complete narrative of everything Jesus said and did in the course of His life on earth? Furthermore, are we also to assume that his meaning here is that Scripture is somehow missing key doctrines? Let’s hope not. To say that Scripture is incomplete is to say that it is fallible. Seriously! If Scripture is missing any doctrines, which would seem to be what Cameron is saying, then it would be incomplete and therefore not the infallible set of Doctrines that tell the Christian what the Christian faith is and how to attain it. This is what Cameron needs to justify the extrabiblical teachings the Catholic Church has but is not what Christians need. And what does Scripture say about its effect on the believer?

• 2 Tim 3:16-17 (ESV): Scripture makes the believer complete and equipped for every good work.
• 2 Pet 1:3 (ESV): “through the knowledge of God, as revealed in Scripture, believers have access to all that is necessary for living a godly life.” [4]
• Col 2:10: ‘in Him you have been made complete’ – our knowledge of God as revealed in Scripture makes us complete.
• Php 1:6: ‘he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion’
• Jas 1:4: ‘let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.’

As you can see, Scripture is not incomplete since we as believers are made complete via their teachings.

So, why would he even attempt to push us down this path? Did he just say this to introduce uncertainty that Scripture is somehow missing vital doctrines and teachings and thus lacking in some of the most important information that was somehow purposely left out of Scripture? Who knows! What is obvious is that his statement is irresponsible and unprovable. What we have is what God intended us to have and it would seem to be an unwarranted accusation that God purposely left things out of the Word which He desired us to have? If that is his intent, then it would make Scripture incomplete and fallible.

John’s statement here is not meant to convey there is something missing in Scripture, but that, for instance, Jesus likely healed thousands even though there are only a few healings recorded. Nor is it meant to convey that there are teachings of Jesus that were purposely or accidentally left out. Most commentators, including George Haydock in his Catholic commentary of the Gospel of John, see this statement as hyperbole to indicate that most of what Jesus said and did was not recorded, which is exactly what the verse Cameron quoted says. What the Scriptures include are the teachings required for us to understand and believe the Gospel message that Jesus and the Apostles preached and taught. It was never meant to be an all-inclusive historical account of everything Jesus said and did.

Conclusion

So, once again, we stepped through another argument meant to refute Sola Scriptura, an argument that was once again a failed attempt. Cameron was hoping to show that the Bible contradicts Sola Scriptura by suggesting that Scripture is incomplete and appealing to ‘tradition’ and trying to show that the New Testament talked about a ‘magisterium,’ something that was unknown until the late 19th century. This approach doomed his argument.

I know I didn’t address everything that Cameron said in this argument, and there was one other topic I wanted to address but to do so would have required another four or five pages. But once I dismantled the main point of this response and showed that Scripture was, in fact, the only infallible source for the faith and practice of the Church, the rest of Cameron’s argument just fell apart. Throughout my Sola Scriptura series, I have shown time and time again that the ‘tradition’ referred to by both Scripture and the Church fathers was not a separate source of infallible teachings passed down orally from the Apostles to us today. Without proof of some kind, this has to be viewed as a fallacy to confuse the uninformed and does not support the main point of this argument, which was that the Bible contradicts Sola Scriptura.

Cameron started off this argument by attempting to show that Scripture does not state explicitly that Scripture is the only infallible authority for faith and practice. This fell apart quickly because even though the Bible might not say that Scripture is the only infallible source, there are no other infallible sources, which leaves Scripture as the only one that remains!

I then dissected Acts 15 and showed that the Jerusalem council was not an example of the ‘magisterium’ deciding doctrine, but was an example of the Apostles correcting the salvation message being spread by the Judaizing Christians. And Acts 8 was not about Scripture admitting that it needs authoritative interpretation, but an example of a Christian named Philip preaching the Gospel to a Eunuch trying to understand Isaiah through the lens of Judaism.

He then attempted to say that because John 21:25 says that the Bible does not contain all that Jesus said and did, Scripture admits that it’s incomplete. Presumably, this would be where ‘tradition’ steps in to provide those missing words and deeds, but we already know there is nothing missing in Scripture. And no commentators, including Catholic commentators, believe this to be a valid argument. Without those missing words and deeds, one can only assume that what we have is what God intended for us to have, and we don’t need to make up stories or doctrines to try to fill in the supposed blanks that don't exist. Scripture gives us all we need.

Cameron did not prove that the Bible contradicted Sola Scriptura. He seems to have attempted to prove that the modern Catholic concept of ‘tradition’ fills in the gaps for what he seems to think is missing in Scripture. If so, even that failed since there is no such thing as the Catholic concept of ‘tradition’ and therefore, nothing to add to the Christian faith. Scripture is complete and therefore does not contradict Sola Scriptura, which means that both ‘tradition’ and the ‘magisterium’ are nothing more than false teachings used to justify the existence of unbiblical doctrines and dogmas.

These are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’

Athanasius (297-373), Festal Letters, Letter 29.

Footnotes

1. See the following blogs of my Sola Scriptura series: 1) Part 19: Irenaeus on Scripture and Tradition, 2) Part 20: Tertullian on Scripture and Tradition, 3) Part 21: Real Tradition: Customs and Practices, 4) Part 22: Clement, Origen and Cyril on Scripture and Tradition, 5) Part 23: Chrysostom On Scripture and Tradition, 6) Part 24: Athanasius On Scripture and Tradition, 7) Part 25: Augustine On Scripture and Tradition, 8) Part 26: The Middle Ages on Scripture and Tradition, 9) Part 27: Tradition as Interpretation: Unanimous Consent, 10) Part 28: Tradition as Interpretation: Conflicting Views, 11) Part 29: Tradition as Interpretation: Misrepresentations.
2. I. Howard Marshall, “2 Thessalonians,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al., 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1289.
3. See: Circumcision - What does the Bible say? How should Christians view circumcision? - Compelling Truth, What did Paul teach about circumcision? - BibleAsk and Why was circumcision a significant issue in Acts 15:1 for early Christians?
4. Topical Bible: Completeness of God's Word

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/