Sola Scriptura is Arbitrary: Argument #1 Against Sola Scriptura

We have finally made it to argument one, which according to Carmeron is the most powerful argument of all against Sola Scriptura, and my response becomes part 38 of the series. This one isn’t really what I would have expected as the strongest and best argument. To Cameron, the most devastating argument is, ‘Sola Scriptura is arbitrary.’ But the question that is likely on your mind is, ‘what exactly does that mean?’ So, we will attempt to unravel that and provide a response to his argument. I admit, when I read the title, I was a bit confused. Most attacks on Sola Scriptura are the full-frontal kind, but this one is an odd approach, possibly because he is attempting to ‘make his mark’ on this subject. If he can prove his point, then he is likely to be recognized in the apologetics community for his effort. If he fails, no one will really remember it.

Since this is the last one, how will Cameron tie all of the previous arguments together? And, is that even possible? After failing to prove any of the previous arguments, can this one be proven at all?

Before we get started, let’s define the word ‘arbitrary’ so there is no confusion.

Arbitrary - chosen, decided, etc. seemingly at random or on a whim rather than in a reasoned or methodical way.

ARBITRARY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

So, according to Cameron, Sola Scriptura was a randomly chosen concept decided without any true reason or methodology for that decision. That would mean that Sola Scriptura does not make any sense.

And with that as our definition, let’s see where this last argument takes us.

The Argument: Sola Scriptura is Arbitrary

As we’ve always done, we will start with a transcript of what Cameron said in his YouTube video for argument #1.

Are you ready? Argument number one: Sola Scriptura is arbitrary. This is it, the strongest argument against Sola Scriptura. By now we've seen that Sola Scriptura isn't found in the Bible, it wasn't practiced by the early church, creates chaos instead of clarity, leaves believers stranded as their own final authority, fails to explain how we can be sure about the canon, has no identifiable moment in history when it became true, it's imperfect and even contradicts scripture itself. But when you take all of that together it reveals a deeper issue, one that cuts to the core of Sola Scriptura itself. It imposes an unexplained and unjustified limit on how God guides his people. When we see a restriction or a limit we naturally ask why does this limit actually exist? For example, if a scientist claimed that gravity only applies in 10% of the universe, the immediate question would be: why only 10%? Why not 11%? Why not 100%? If no good reason can be given the claim starts to look arbitrary, a limit imposed without justification. The exact same principle applies here. Sola Scriptura says that God's infallible guidance is limited to 66 written books and nothing else. No binding tradition, no authoritative church, no spirit protected interpretation beyond the text. But why? What explains this limit? Some theological limits do actually have an explanation. So for example Richard Swinburn has argued that the doctrine of the trinity, something we've already talked about a limit of three divine persons, is explained by the nature of love. A single person can't love another and two persons only love each other. But three allows for communal love to exist eternally within God himself. So in this case the limit of three has an inherent rational basis. But that explanation doesn't work for Sola Scriptura. Nothing about God's nature requires him to communicate only through written text, nothing about God's love, for example, explains why he would only speak in 66 books but not 67. If 66 books are compatible with his loving nature why not 73 why not a combination of written and oral guidance as we see in scripture itself? But if the limit isn't found in God's nature, maybe it's found in God's reasons, some purported purpose behind restricting his guidance to a fixed set of books. To take another example, Swinburn has argued that God has good reasons to become incarnate, such as to participate in human suffering. A general sending his soldiers to war should at the very least consider fighting alongside them. That's a reasoned justification for the incarnation. So what would be the reason for limiting divine guidance to exactly 66 written books? What purpose would this restriction serve? Would it ensure clarity? Well, if so, why has Sola Scriptura led to division rather than unity as we saw in argument number eight? Would it give believers confidence? Well if so, why does the canon problem leave Protestants uncertain about which books belong as we saw in argument number five? Would it allow Christians to follow God's truth more faithfully? Well if so, then why does Sola Scriptura force every believer to become their own final authority as we saw in argument number seven? At every turn that we take the very reasons one might expect for this limit are undermined by the problem Sola Scriptura creates. The more we look for a justification the more this limit appears to be arbitrary, a rule imposed without reason. If this were truly God's plan, we would expect, one, a biblical statement affirming it, but we don't have one. Two, a historical moment where Christians recognized it as the rule of faith but history shows the opposite. Three, evidence that it produced unity and doctrinal clarity but it hasn't. Four, a way for believers in solar scriptures to reliably know what belongs in scripture but there isn't one. In other words, when we look at history, scripture and reason, there doesn't seem to be an obvious explanation for this particular limit. Now here's where things get serious, Okay? Limits can't just lack explanation. If gravity really only worked in 10% of the universe there would have to be an explanation. There would have to be some reason why only 10%. But, if no explanation is available we don't just ignore the problem, we abandon the claim. We abandon the limit. The same is true here. If God's guidance really were restricted to 66 books there must be a reason, but no reason is in sight. It's not found in God's nature, it's not found in God's reasons, it's not found in history, logic or scripture. That means that this restriction, this limit should be abandoned. Just like the scientists must abandon their 10% claim about gravity, we don't get to arbitrarily impose limits and expect others to follow us. Sola Scriptura isn't just historically and biblically unsupported, it's an arbitrary theological cage, a rule imposed on God, not by God. And that's why we all must abandon it. Now before wrapping up, let me clarify something crucial here, okay? This video presents a cumulative case, meaning if you're planning a thoughtful response, a sort of piecemeal reply, tackling one or two points is not going to cut it. To genuinely counter what's laid out here you need a comprehensive response that addresses the cumulative strength of all of these arguments together. And to be clear, while I am Catholic this wasn't simply an argument for Catholicism. It's an argument highlighting why the principle of Sola Scriptura itself faces profound challenges. In my view everyone should reject Sola Scriptura including Protestants.

Cameron's video: 37:21

Alright, here we go!

A Review: How We Got Here

Cameron starts off this argument with the following,

By now we've seen that Sola Scriptura isn't found in the Bible, it wasn't practiced by the early church, creates chaos instead of clarity, leaves believers stranded as their own final authority, fails to explain how we can be sure about the canon, has no identifiable moment in history when it became true, it's imperfect and even contradicts scripture itself.

Referring to his previous arguments, Cameron seems to have assumed that no one could have possibly provided an adequate response to them, but if he actually thought that, then that is wishful thinking on his part. [1] So, let’s start this response by doing a little review of our own. Here are summaries of the previous eight arguments with a link to my response blogs.

#9 - Sola Scriptura Was Not in Early Church History

I started this one off with a definition of what Sola Scriptura actually is so that there would not be any misunderstanding of what the Protestant means by the term. Since Cameron touched upon apostolic succession, I pointed out that there was no recorded history to show that any early Church father believed this, and certainly none ever stated that they were in the line of succession, at least not until the institution of the popes came into being. I then defined ‘anachronism’ and pointed out that church history reveals that church councils were fallible and could not create infallible decisions. I also pointed to previous blogs that discussed at length the Church fathers who demonstrated their high view of Scripture and never believed in the Catholic view of ‘sacred tradition.’ Even in a debate between James White and Mitch Pacwa, it was revealed that the Catholic Church does not possess a single word outside of Scripture which can be attributed to either Jesus or an Apostle. If there are no words preserved outside of Scripture, then how can there be ‘binding tradition’ that stems from either Jesus or an Apostle as the Catholic Church claims? I also touched upon the Canon to make the point that history does not demonstrate that the Catholic Church ‘decided’ the Canon of Scripture. And lastly, I dismantled the idea that the early Church fathers needed to write the exact words, ‘Sola Scriptura’ for the concept to be true. If that was actually true, then the Trinity should not be believed since the word does not exist in Scripture or in the earliest of the Church fathers. But since it is a concept taught in Scripture, that left this argument refuted.

#8 - Sola Scriptura Creates Fragmentation

Catholics generally think this argument is hard to refute, but the standard they themselves have to maintain is zero fragments of their own, and their history testified against them. I started by citing that the study referenced was flawed and cited a Catholic source that understood that. The study added cults to the Protestant numbers which means the same could be done for Catholicism. The real number was much less than the supposed 47,000 Cameron stated from his flawed source. But the real problem was that Catholicism still needs to answer for the largest church split of all time - the schism that occurred when the Catholic Church excommunicated Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054 AD. And if that wasn’t bad enough, what about Anglicanism and Protestantism. A better culprit was her gradual slide away from some of the true Christian doctrines which were finally brought to light by the ‘enlightenment.’ I also touched a little upon the plethora of Bible interpretations that Catholicism always accuses Protestants of. But why would Augustine give rules for how one should interpret Scripture? The reasons seem rather obvious after the disastrous allegorical interpretations by Clement of Alexandria and Origen! In the end, since Catholicism is responsible for fragmentations of her own, she fails her own test. The proverbial pot was calling the kettle black.

#7 - Sola Scriptura Makes the Reader the Final Authority

This argument starts off with an attempt to scare the reader into never trying to read Scripture. What Cameron does not explain is why Church fathers provided rules for interpreting difficult passages. This would seem to leave the reader with the understanding that it must be an expectation that we, as believers, should read and attempt to understand the Scriptures. If it is wrong for us, would it not be wrong for them? Would it not be wrong for Cameron? His real point is that it's the place of the Church to interpret Scripture because she is ‘infallible,’ even though some of her decisions demonstrate she is not. I questioned the excommunication of the Eastern Church, or the great schism of 1378 when there were three popes, or the ‘pornocracy’ (also known as the ‘Rule of the Harlots’)? Any one of these illustrates that the Church is NOT infallible. And without an infallible interpreter of Scripture (i.e., the Church), whose job does it then become? That’s right, the individual believer, which was God’s intention all along. Scripture points the believer to Sola Scriptura, not Sola Ecclesia.

#6 - Sola Scriptura Not Taught in the Bible

In this argument, Cameron attempts to show that Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible. He talked about examining 2 Tim 3:16-17 but never does so. Instead, he starts by misrepresenting 1 Tim 1:13-14 as a command that ‘sound words’ refers to ‘oral tradition.’ A better understanding is that it references the Gospel, not an unknown set of oral teachings supposedly and infallibly passed down through generations. But the real proof was in the exposition of the verses. And since Cameron believes in other infallible sources, each was briefly shown to be fallible. I then pointed to some of my other blogs and other verses that addressed the Scriptural evidence that Sola Scriptura is, in fact, taught in the Bible.

#5 - Sola Scriptura and the Canon Problem

This is one of those ‘red herring’ arguments that sound plausible until you realize that the other infallible sources we discussed in the previous argument don’t exist, and without them, there is no way to create Cameron’s understanding of the Canon argument. His argument does not take into account that Paul’s writings were Scripture as soon as they were written, and that fallible councils need rules, like Augustine recorded, to determine this from a human perspective. His argument ignores the fact that the early Church (i.e., the people of God) recognized which books were Canon and which were not without the need of formal councils.

#4 - When Did Sola Scriptura Become True?

This argument was actually quite easy to answer by simply stating - when was it not true? Cameron really wanted to make a strong case for the Church’s binding authority, but his case just fell flat on its face. He wants people to think that the Church was in existence before any of the New Testament books were written by trying to get you to answer ‘when’ the writings were created by the Apostles. And if you fall for this approach then you get stuck trying to explain why the Catholic Church didn’t ‘decide’ the content of the New Testament. Now, it is a defensible position for the Protestant but that is not the point. You don’t have to make a defense here because Cameron forgot that the Old Testament was written long before Jesus was born. And who is the Old Testament about? That’s right - Jesus! [2] So, it is Scripture that was in existence long before the Church was established. I continued with a number of rational and reasoned answers to rebut his argument and in the end, he is left with an indefensible and invalid argument.

#3 - Sola Scriptura Is Imperfect

For this argument, Cameron brings out the big guns for the Catholic apologist – ‘tradition’ and the ‘magisterium’ but both have serious problems. Why? Because both Scripture and Church history tell us about the sufficiency of Scripture and that Scripture interprets Scripture, two truths that Cameron attempted to deny. Cameron brought his logic, I brought receipts – Scriptural proof. He attempted to tell the reader that they should not read Scripture for fear they might accidentally ‘interpret’ what it says without the assistance of the ‘magisterium.’ But this fell flat as well because Church history is full of exhortations to read Scripture! He even tried to resurrect the fragmentation argument which was thoroughly refuted in argument #8. And concerning the ‘magisterium,’ that did not come into existence until the late 1800’s and the Church fathers that encouraged believers to read and interpret Scripture are an unpleasant fact in history to have to deny. It is not Scripture that is imperfect, it is the other so-called ‘infallible’ sources that are.

#2 - The Bible Contradicts Sola Scriptura

And finally, Cameron tried to make the case that the Bible contradicts Sola Scriptura. He attempted to say that the Catholic concept of tradition was mentioned in Scripture, but that is simply not true since neither Scripture nor the early Church fathers understood ‘tradition’ to be anything other than the teachings of the the Apostles, which was the Gospel they taught. And I decided to rebut each of the verses he used for his argument and demonstrated that Scripture is in fact the only infallible source for the faith and practice of the Church. Catholicism desperately wants ‘tradition’ and the ‘magisterium’ so that they have an explanation for their added doctrines, but since the ‘magisterium’ never gets around to interpreting Scripture, it really has no function at all. I refuted other parts of his argument but at this point the basis of this argument was completely null and void.

A Bark Without a Bite

At this point, the history lesson Cameron gives for his case against Sola Scriptura is nearly meaningless since eight of his nine arguments have gone up in smoke. But as we’ve done with other arguments that were refuted before Cameron could really get going, we will look at the remainder of this last argument and answer it accordingly, based on the outline of the refuted arguments above.

Cameron follows his opening with this,

But when you take all of that together it reveals a deeper issue, one that cuts to the core of Sola Scriptura itself. It imposes an unexplained and unjustified limit on how God guides his people. When we see a restriction or a limit we naturally ask why does this limit actually exist? For example, if a scientist claimed that gravity only applies in 10% of the universe, the immediate question would be: why only 10%? Why not 11%? Why not 100%? If no good reason can be given the claim starts to look arbitrary, a limit imposed without justification. The exact same principle applies here. Sola Scriptura says that God's infallible guidance is limited to 66 written books and nothing else. No binding tradition, no authoritative church, no spirit protected interpretation beyond the text. But why? What explains this limit?

So, let’s start with this part of his case,

[Sola Scriptura] imposes an unexplained and unjustified limit on how God guides his people. When we see a restriction or a limit we naturally ask why does this limit actually exist?

My assumption here is that the limit he is referring to is because of this,

So, Cameron thinks his arguments against Sola Scriptura are so powerful that they demonstrate that Scripture places ‘an unexplained and unjustified limit on how God guides his people.’ But what happens to his that limit on God if none of his previous eight arguments are actually true or have merit? If you’ve been following along on this blog, then you already know that his first eight arguments were thoroughly refuted, and if refuted, then Sola Scriptura is not placing any unjustified limit on God. It’s not like I accept the premise that Sola Scriptura places a limit upon God, but Cameron believes it and he wants others to accept this premise. So, let’s explore this for a minute or two.

In both the Old and New Testaments, God inspired people to record the things He wanted them to recall so that His people would never forget what He spoke to them. It wasn’t a separate set of beliefs that were never meant to be recorded, it was the Words of God spoken to His people. The 10 Commandments are a great example. God wrote His laws on two tablets for His people to read and remember. God inspired Moses to write down the history of the Jews prior to him, and then God inspired the prophets after him. The same is true for the New Testament books. The teachings of Christ were orally preached by the Apostles and then written down for the subsequent generations to read and teach to others. As we see from the example of the Old Testament, this was not a limitation imposed upon God, but a purposeful desire of God for His people. God’s spoken word to His people is not an imposition upon God, it is the expectation of God for His people to read and do the very things his Apostles did – preach and teach the word of God to others, as well as live holy lives.

If God wanted a separate set of teachings called ‘tradition,’ He would have made that clear to us, but it is simply not present in Scripture or Church history. And as has been presented in my Sola Scriptura series, the New Testament references to the word ‘tradition’ do NOT prove Cameron’s case.

There is also an expectation within Scripture that assumes that the people of God would read and understand His Word. If God had wanted a ‘magisterium’ to interpret Scripture, then it would have been spelled that out within its pages. What’s more, a true ‘magisterium’ would have actually interpreted all of Scripture for the people of God, but the current one proposed by the Catholic Church has produced a total of 5-7 verses of the entire Bible in the last 2000 years. OK, it's really only the last 145 years, since the ‘magisterium’ has not been around that long. Either way, that is a pitiful record! If God wants His Word read and understood, and you seriously think that an institution needs to interpret Scripture for its people but never does, then one has to ask, ‘who is placing the limitation upon God?’

Cameron then launches into an attack upon the Protestants' understanding of the Canon of Scripture, which he will do multiple times in this argument. He wants to know why there are only 66 books in the Protestant Canon. But this question can be thrown right back at him – why does the Catholic Canon only have 73 books in their Bible? Why not 45? Or 95? If the Protestants are seen as ‘limiting’ God with 66 books, then why isn’t Catholicism seen as limiting God with 73 books? This is an arbitrary question that does not address the real issue of the Canon debate. And I also understand that Cameron’s limitation is that Protestants reject ‘tradition’ and the ‘magisterium,’ although he doesn’t want to actually say those words here, but he will in the next section.

Cameron then ends this section of his argument with this,

Sola Scriptura says that God's infallible guidance is limited to 66 written books and nothing else. No binding tradition, no authoritative church, no spirit protected interpretation beyond the text. But why? What explains this limit?

So, returning to the 66 books criticism again, Cameron doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that he is referring to the difference in the number of Old Testament books. Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox all agree that there are 27 books in the New Testament Canon. So, the question is: what is the Canon of the Old Testament and who is responsible for its content? Rom 3:2 states clearly that it was entrusted to the Jews, and they said it was 39 books. The Jews did not accept the intra-testament Apocryphal books the Catholic and Orthodox churches do, but more importantly, they do not add any appreciable content to the understanding of the New Testament. It’s also noteworthy that it took the Catholic Church until 1546 to ‘officially’ recognize these added books.

And one other truth to point out here - the little matter of the Holy Spirit, God who resides in the believer, who was given to guide, correct and grow the believer. Believers are not left stranded because God did not limit Himself in the lives of believers. The Spirit of God speaks directly to His people!

STM and the Trinity

A single person can't love another and two persons only love each other. But three allows for communal love to exist eternally within God himself. So in this case the limit of three has an inherent rational basis. But that explanation doesn't work for Sola Scriptura. Nothing about God's nature requires him to communicate only through written text, nothing about God's love, for example, explains why he would only speak in 66 books but not 67. If 66 books are compatible with his loving nature why not 73? Why not a combination of written and oral guidance as we see in scripture itself?

Cameron starts this part off with some philosopher’s thoughts on how love in humans has to be trinitarian. He then attempts to use this logic to show that Scripture alone cannot work because it's singular, and the only way it can work is in a grouping of three, which just so happens to exist in STM, or Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. I think this comes across a bit like acrostic algebra does. He must have worked hard to find this philosopher’s example so it could be used to ‘prove’ the Catholic STM concept. But neither ‘tradition’ nor the ‘magisterium’ are described in Scripture, nor are they documented in the early history of the Church. This prompted one of the response videos to say the following,

God is triune by nature. But the Roman Catholic system isn't triune. It's a human invention. And worse, it's one that adds man-made teachings to the gospel of Christ. If we accept that, if we make room for Rome's dogmas, for papal decrees and Marian doctrines and purgatory and indulgences, then we are no longer submitting to Christ. We are submitting to a different voice. And Scripture is clear about what that means. The Bible says in Galatians 5:4, "You have been severed from Christ, you who are being justified by law, you have fallen from grace." So, here's the number one reason why Sola Scriptura is true. Because if we add to God's word, we lose the Gospel.

9 Reasons why Sola Scriptura is True [emphasis added]

Scripture and history could not be clearer, STM is man-made and by endorsing it, Christians lose the Gospel message in a sea of man-made teachings.

He then launches into a ‘what if’ game about the Canon of Scripture as a way to bring the reader back to the concept of multiple authorities like ‘tradition’ and the ‘magisterium.’ But a 19th century invention like the ‘magisterium’ should not carry any weight as a convincing argument in the minds of any believer. Someone might as well ask why there is an arbitrary limitation of a single church leader like the pope? Why not the more biblical concept of patriarchs like Eastern Orthodoxy or presbyteries as Protestants have? This can easily become a meaningless argument since anyone can question anything and you don’t have to have any proof, just a bunch of questions.

Limiting Divine Guidance

So what would be the reason for limiting divine guidance to exactly 66 written books? What purpose would this restriction serve? Would it ensure clarity? Well, if so, why has Sola Scriptura led to division rather than unity as we saw in argument number eight? Would it give believers confidence? Well if so, why does the canon problem leave Protestants uncertain about which books belong as we saw in argument number five? Would it allow Christians to follow God's truth more faithfully? Well if so, then why does Sola Scriptura force every believer to become their own final authority as we saw in argument number seven?

In Cameron’s attempt to pull all of the eight responses together in this final argument, he again makes another set of accusations against Sola Scriptura by implying that:

It leads to division and disunity within the Church.
It destroys the confidence of believers.
It leaves Protestants uncertainty about which books belong in the Bible.
It forces every believer to become their own final authority.

I have already provided a summary of my responses to each of his arguments above, but let’s do our due-diligence and provide a brief response to these new charges.

Division and disunity

The reality is that the Church has had this from the very beginning. If there were no divisions or disunity within the early church, there would not be any warnings from Paul about it. (See: 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:3; Rom 16:17; Php 2:2; Col 3:4) Church history is filled with examples where some were caused by individuals, and others were the result of the Church exercising unrighteous rules and behaviors. And it only got worse as the Church drifted farther and farther away from the Apostles’ teachings and the egos of certain church leaders got in the way. So, to blame Protestants for division and disunity is somewhat comical. And to prove that, let me point out again all the heresies that plagued the early Church as well as divisions like that with Eastern Orthodoxy, the self-inflicted pornocracy, and the great schism involving Honorius. Not all disunity and division can be laid at the feet of Protestantism as Cameron presupposes. If the Catholic Church had not added unbiblical doctrines and modified the true understanding of Salvation, there would not have been the need for a Reformation. Five hundred years later, the Catholic Church still does not understand her part in creating it.

Destroys the Confidence of Believers

Catholicism has destroyed a believer's confidence in their salvation all by herself. Most Catholics can parrot the beliefs they were taught but generally do not understand or believe what they speak. Their congregations know virtually nothing about what Scripture actually says and means because they are taught not to read it and/or to run to a priest to understand it. They instill fear to gain compliance with their sacramental system. That very act does not create confidence in their adherents. Protestantism does have its own issues, but this one is a case of looking for the speck in the Protestant’s eye while a log is in their own eye.

Uncertainty About the Canon

As my blog, Sola Scriptura and the Canon Problem, pointed out, this might plague the minds of liberal and progressive Protestants, many of whom are not even Christians, but for the Protestants that hold to Sola Scriptura, this is not even a little concerning. Cameron might want to attempt to plant doubt here, but there is really none taking root.

Every Believer Their Own Authority

Again, as my blog, Sola Scriptura Makes the Reader the Final Authority, clearly showed, Scripture commands the believer to both read and understand Scripture. Protestants are not in fear of reading God’s word since God purposely gave it to all believers because he wanted them all to read and understand what He spoke to them.

Four Arbitrary Expectations

At every turn that we take the very reasons one might expect for this limit are undermined by the problem Sola Scriptura creates. The more we look for a justification the more this limit appears to be arbitrary, a rule imposed without reason. If this were truly God's plan, we would expect, one, a biblical statement affirming it, but we don't have one. Two, a historical moment where Christians recognized it as the rule of faith but history shows the opposite. Three, evidence that it produced unity and doctrinal clarity but it hasn't. Four, a way for believers in solar scriptures to reliably know what belongs in scripture but there isn't one. In other words, when we look at history, scripture and reason, there doesn't seem to be an obvious explanation for this particular limit.

Cameron continues with his expectations which he believes Sola Scriptura should have met and did not, and they are:

He wants a biblical statement affirming it, but says we don't have one.
He wants an historical moment where Christians recognized it as the rule of faith, but history shows the opposite.
He wants evidence that it produced unity and doctrinal clarity but it hasn't.
He wants a way for believers in Sola Scriptura to reliably know what belongs in Scripture but there isn't one.

Concerning #1, as was already shown above and in a previous blog, the Catholic Church presents a lot of ‘infallible’ sources, but they are all fallible except for Scripture, which is the only one that Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all agree upon as an infallible source. And that blog also went through a number of Scriptures that demonstrate that it is the only infallible source. Cameron doesn’t like the answer, but then, he’s not required to like it. Along with the provided Scriptures, that should be enough for him. And in case you are curious about those verses, please see: Scripture Alone is Imperfect: Argument #3 Against Sola Scriptura.

Concerning #2, history does not show the opposite as Cameron says. You want a moment in time? How about when Moses wrote down the Pentateuch and the Old Testament prophets prophesies were written down? As I said in When Did It Become True: Argument #4 Against Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura has always been true! There has never been a time when it was NOT true for the Christian. From the beginning, Christians understood Scripture to be the rule of faith for the Church because that is what the Apostles taught.

Concerning #3, Cameron wants evidence it produces unity and doctrinal clarity, but he cannot even guarantee that this is true for the Catholic Church, as we saw in Fragmentation: Argument #8 Against Sola Scriptura. Again, where was unity when the Orthodox Church was excommunicated in 1054? Where is the doctrinal clarity for purgatory? Papal infallibility? Indulgences? Penance? Salvation by merit and sacraments? He might disagree with Protestantism, but his own tradition is steeped in disunity and doctrinal ambiguity.

And finally, concerning #4, Cameron once again returns to the Canon question. By now the reader has to be tired of the constant repetition of this issue, because I am too! He wants more than God gave us – the body of believers in the first two centuries that recognized which books of the New Testament were Scripture. That was laid out in The Canon Problem: Argument #5 Against Sola Scriptura.

Throwing Off the Chains

Sola Scriptura isn't just historically and biblically unsupported, it's an arbitrary theological cage, a rule imposed on God, not by God.

If there is one thing that I have successfully shown over and over in my Sola Scriptura series, it is that Sola Scriptura is both biblical and historical in every respect. Generally, Catholicism does not want to see either, no matter how much proof someone produces. And does Cameron really believe that God’s Word creates a cage for God? Is he really complaining that God binds Himself to His Word? After reading the Old Testament, can he really say that with a straight face? Why on earth would God have spoken it to His people if He didn’t mean what He said? And since God is omniscient and omnipotent, can He really limit Himself in some way that He would not expect?

For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name. (Ps 138:2b)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
See also: Num 23:19; John 1:14; John 17:17; John 6:63; Col 3:16; Luke 11:28; Mat 24:35; Isa 40:8; Isa 55:11

It seems odd that Cameron cannot see the arbitrary, or should I say fictional, beliefs that he and the Catholic Church impose upon God, His Word and the people of God. Since there is no proof, is not ‘tradition’ an arbitrary imposition upon Christianity? Upon God? Can’t the same thing be said about the ‘magisterium’? At this point, it is Catholicism that has added unbiblical teachings to the clear doctrines that God has laid out in His Word. Scripture makes two types of references to ‘tradition.’ It either points out the Jewish man-made traditions that Jesus castigated the Pharisees and Sadducees for and warns us against creating, or it talks about the traditions of the Apostles, which are their teachings that were inscripturated into the New Testament. And the tradition that we see from Church history is the ‘traditions of the Apostles,’ which again were their teachings encapsulated in the Scriptures we have to this day. There is no mention of a separate set of oral teachings not found in the New Testament. And since we have a bunch of unscriptural teachings like the papacy, penance, purgatory, indulgences, praying to saints and Mary, Marian dogmas which must be believed for salvation, and worship of icons, what we really need to start talking about is the deception in the Church that has led to these teachings.

What does Scripture command us to do concerning anything that is taught?

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; (1 Th 5:21)

And why are we supposed to examine or test everything?

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

Scripture is the litmus test for everything that is taught in the Church, which is another reason why the Church is not infallible. Arianism was taught in the early Church and had to be rooted out and that process took over a century to accomplish. So, ask yourself a question: why would God, working through Luke, Paul and John, tell the believers to examine everything, to make sure that what is being taught is actually in Scripture, and to test every spirit? Because there would be false christs, false prophets and false teachers who would come into the Church for the specific purpose of deceiving, if possible, the elect. (Mat 24:24; Mark 13:22) And judging by the number of unbiblical teachings throughout the history of the Church, she has not done the best job of teaching believers to ‘see whether these things were so’ and ‘holding fast to what is good.’ And Protestants are not immune here either!

Now, I know that Catholicism has applied this warning to Protestantism, but it is the Protestants that focus on the only known infallible tool the Church has to fight off false teachings, Scripture. It’s also what we see in Acts 17:11 that we are supposed to use to judge all things. And since ‘tradition’ is not what Catholicism says it is and the ‘magisterium’ does not do the job of interpretation, and since neither councils nor the Church are infallible, Scripture is the only thing we, as Christians, have that can be trusted to guide the Church and her doctrine. Both Jesus and the Apostles warned us about false apostles, prophets and teachers, and here is a reminder of those warnings.

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. (Mat 7:15)
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge” — which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. (1 Tim 6:20-21)
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (2 Pet 2:1)
and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. (2 Pet 2:3)
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 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! (Gal 1:6-8)
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Tim 4:3-4)

I realize that these are strong words, but they need to be said. When Cameron says that Sola Scriptura is arbitrary, what he means is that since Scripture alone is not the only infallible source, and that there is a higher authority than Scripture, like the Church, then the Church can overrule what Scripture says, or add to what Scripture does not say. That very action tells everyone that he thinks Scripture IS fallible because it is incomplete in what it teaches. And to say that Sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone, limits God, he is saying that what God spoke was incomplete and His word cannot be trusted. So, according to Cameron, the incompleteness of God’s Word limits God if we follow Sola Scriptura. But that view attacks God’s nature, His omniscience, omnipotence, and immutability. What’s worse, it must be a deliberate and purposeful omission by God, and I don't think he really wants to go there.

What Catholicism wants is a way to add to or take away from what God has spoken to His people. Adding ‘tradition’ allows it to add to the doctrines of God by allowing the Church to create doctrines and dogmas that are clearly not taught or found in Scripture. And adding the ‘magisterium’ allows it to take away from God’s Word by reinterpreting the clear meanings of Scripture.

Conclusion

As we conclude this response, it is noteworthy that once again, Cameron has failed to provide a convincing argument, and not just to this last argument, but to any of them. As he ended this argument, his challenge was,

This video presents a cumulative case, meaning if you're planning a thoughtful response, a sort of piecemeal reply, tackling one or two points is not going to cut it. To genuinely counter what's laid out here you need a comprehensive response that addresses the cumulative strength of all of these arguments together.

This was a challenge that was embraced from the first words I wrote in refutation of argument #9, long before I understood it to be a cumulative set of arguments on his part. My intent from the very beginning was to respond to each, and it is safe to say that Cameron failed to be the slightest bit convincing for any of them. (See footnote [1])

Cameron attempted to show that Sola Scriptura faces real challenges from his cumulative argument but unfortunately, all of his previous arguments were easily refuted, thus proving that Sola Scriptura does not face any challenges based on biblical or historical grounds, at least not from him. If he wanted a cumulative argument to demonstrate the overall strength of the case against Sola Scriptura, then the fact that not a single argument stood up to scrutiny shows that his presentation was a complete and total failure.

But to make sure that the point was thoroughly made, I attempted to answer his remaining questions posed in his argument. From beginning to end, this nine-point argument was an attempt to undercut the completeness of Scripture and show the need for ‘tradition’ and a ‘magisterium’ because even Catholicism knows that many of their cherished doctrines and dogmas do not exist in Scripture. The only way Catholicism can be ‘legitimately’ defended is by providing a path for her beliefs to exist. Without an avenue for ‘tradition’ and the ‘magisterium’, Catholicism cannot mount a serious defense against the truths restored by the Reformers.

In the end, Sola Scriptura does not limit God because God’s Word spells out what Christians are supposed to believe, warns believers against adding to or taking away from what God has spoken, and describes the dangers the Church will face if she does not guard the faith once for all delivered to the saints. (1 Tim 6:20; Jude 1:3)

Sola Scriptura is a fight that the Church should have because it's about the very content of God’s message to His people, the Church. Are Christians willing to fight for truth? Are they willing to stand up to false teachers, false prophets and false apostles? Will we stand with Joshua and say,

“If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Josh 25:15)

Are we willing to stand up for truth? Are we willing to fight for the Scriptures that have always guided the Church? I hope so.

“What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it”

(Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter 20).

“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. ... So all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatever things they teach, these let us learn”

(Hippolytus, Against Noetus, Chapter 9).

“Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go into details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word”

(Athanasius, Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae, Chapter 4).

“But for us the sufficient demonstration of the soul’s immortality is the teaching of Holy Scripture, which is self-authenticating because [it is] inspired of God”

(Nemesius of Emesa, On the Nature of Man, Chapter 2, Of the Soul).

Sola Scriptura in the Early Church – James Attebury

Footnotes

[1] Here is a list of the response videos to Cameron’s:

[2] Jeremiah Knight on X: "Jesus Through Out the Bible"

Search This Blog

shadmans Musings