Scriptural Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

The Light Shines in the Darkness...

Acts 8:30-31 and the Perspicuity of Scripture

“Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.” -Acts 8:30-31

Argument (from the R.C. perspective):

The Ethiopian eunuch needed Philip, a member of the clergy of the Church, to teach him what Scripture means. Thus, this shows that we need the Church to teach us what Scripture means because Scripture is not clear enough.

Response:

1. Philip was not a bishop in the early church. He was a deacon (Acts 6:1-5). According to Rome, only bishops are part of the teaching magesterium, and thus, Philip was using his private judgment in interpreting Scripture, something forbidden by Rome.

2. The principle of sola Scriptura does not deny that some passages of Scripture are obscure (a small minority). This is especially true of Messianic prophecies (which are what Philip and the eunuch were discussing). One would not know who they applied to unless they knew about the life and teachings of the Lord Jesus. Thus, if this eunuch had one or more of the Gospels (which show the fulfillment of these prophecies), he likely would not have needed Philip to come to a saving knowledge of the truth and repentance.

3. The principle of sola Scriptura does not deny that the Church is needed to teach its members (and unbelievers) about the meaning of some passages of Scripture. It only denies the infallibility of the Church and the obscurity of the important portions of Scripture.

2 Peter 1:20 and Private Interpretation

Argument:

Roman Catholics use 2 Peter 1:20 to argue that the supreme teaching authority resides in the Roman Catholic Church. Here’s 2 Peter 1:20-21 (for some context):

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” -2 Peter 1:20-21

The Roman Catholic latches on to “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation” and says, “See, you can’t use private judgment [i.e. “one’s own interpretation”] to interpret Scripture. Thus, we need the Church to tell us what the Bible means.”

Response:

1. The Roman Catholic Church has never dogmatically interpreted this verse. Thus, the Roman Catholic apologist must use his/her private interpretation in order to prove that one can’t use his/her private interpretation!

2. The Roman Catholic assertion isolates the verse from its context. To determine the context of this verse, one would have to start at verse 16:

“For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.” (v. 16)

The point of verse 16 is to say that they did not just make up the events of the life of Jesus out of thin air. Rather, they were eyewitnesses. Verse 17 and 18:

“For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”-- and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.” (v. 17 and 18)

Peter is speaking here about the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5), and his point is to emphasize that he was an eyewitness to Christ. Verse 19:

“So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.” (v. 19)

Here, he says that because he was an eyewitness (and not just some lunatic that made up the whole story), his readers should have faith and hope in their heart. Now, we come to the verse in contention:

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation…” (v.20)

Verse 21:

“…for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (v. 21)

From the context, Peter’s point in v. 21 is that the origin of Scripture is not man (“no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will”) but God (“spoke from God”). Thus, we can see that not only does the Protestant interpretation of this passage make sense when taken in context, but that the Roman Catholic interpretation makes no sense in the context of the preceding and following verses.

2 Peter 3:16 and the Perspicuity of Scripture

“…as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” -2 Peter 3:16

Argument:

Roman Catholics sometimes use this passage to say that the Scriptures are not perspicuous enough to be understood by the average person.

Response:

The verse says that ‘untaught and unstable’ men distort the Scriptures. Thus, would it not logically follow that a taught and stable man could accurately interpret Scripture? According to Peter, the distortion of the Scriptures by these men to their own destruction was caused by their ignorance and instability. There is nothing in here that suggests that the Scriptures are not perspicuous in what they teach.

All Scripture quotes are from the NASB.

Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/98.htm

Some helpful online reading can be found here:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/scripture.htm