Audio only:
Does the Bible really stand alone as the only infallible rule of faith—or did Christ establish something more? In this episode, Karlo Broussard looks at Scripture and the early Church to see whether an infallible teaching authority continued beyond the apostles—and what that means for the case against sola scriptura.
TRANSCRIPT:
At the heart of the modern conception of Sola Scriptura is the belief that there are no other infallible rules of faith for Christians after the apostles. So, if we want to show that Sola Scriptura is false, we need to show that at least one divinely ordained, infallible rule of faith other than scripture continued beyond the apostles.
But can that actually be done? Stick around—and you’ll find out.
>>>>>>
Hey guys! Welcome back to the channel—I’m really glad you’re here. If you haven’t done so already, make sure to subscribe and hit that bell notification so you don’t miss any new videos. And if this podcast has been helpful for you, I’d love for you to consider supporting us over on Patreon at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out. And if you’re already a patron—thank you. Seriously, I’m deeply grateful, because without your support, I couldn’t keep doing this podcast.
>>>>>
Alright, let’s dive in.
When critiquing the doctrine of sola scriptura, some Catholics take as their target the idea that all doctrines must come from the Bible. From this, it’s argued that the Bible doesn’t teach this, and therefore sola scriptura is self-refuting.
But some Protestants are quick to respond that this line of argumentation misses the mark, since it runs on an inaccurate understanding of sola scriptura. “The real definition of sola scriptura,” so it’s said, “is that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith.”
And they arrive at this conclusion like this:
- The Bible is an infallible rule of faith.
- There are no other infallible rules of faith.
- Therefore, the Bible alone is our infallible rule of faith.
Now, the key premise in that argument is premise two: there are no other infallible rules of faith.
And here’s an important clarification: for most Protestants, that claim doesn’t apply to the first century. They acknowledge that the apostles were infallible—both in their writing and in their preaching. So they agree that during the apostolic age, there were multiple infallible rules of faith—the apostolic writings and oral teachings.
But—and this is the crucial point—Protestants argue that after the apostles died, no infallible rule continued other than their writings. Why? Because, they say, no unwritten apostolic teachings were preserved, and no infallible agents succeeded the apostles to give infallible teachings.
So, if we want to prove Sola Scriptura false, we’ve got two possible routes:
Either show that
a) unwritten apostolic teaching was preserved, or
b) an infallible teaching authority—like the Magisterium—continued after the apostles and gave infallible teachings.
Today, I’m going to focus on that second route.
Specifically, I want to argue that an infallible teaching authority did continue after the apostles—and it’s identified in the episcopal college, the order of bishops.
So let’s build the case step by step.
First, we go to Jesus in Matthew 18:15–18.
There, Jesus lays out a process for resolving disputes:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Notice Jesus presents “the Church” as an agent who has the authority to make judgments that are binding—so binding, in fact, that rejecting them puts you out of communion with Christ’s Church. To be a “gentile” or a “tax collector” was code for being an outsider.
But that raises a few questions:
What does Jesus mean by “the Church” here who is to exercise this sort of agency?
And what kind of authoritative judgements are we talking about?
Let’s take the first question.
Jesus can’t mean “the Church” in the sense of the invisible body of believers united by grace, because an invisible body can’t hear cases, make judgments, and issue binding decisions.
So Jesus must be referring to something visible—some identifiable body of leaders who officially represent “the Church.”
Most identify that body of leaders as those whom the apostles would appoint to lead the local churches they founded. However, verse 18 gives us reason to think it extends to the college of the apostles as representative of the Church universal.
Notice immediately after Jesus speaks of the Church making binding judgments, he turns to the apostles present there and says, “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.”
There, Jesus is addressing the apostles as a group and ties their collective binding and loosing activity to the said agency of “the Church.” Surely, the collective agency of the apostles goes beyond any sort of local setting. Thus, Jesus envisions the apostles as a group representative of the universal Church and exercising agency on behalf of it.
Also, as we’ll see in a moment, the New Testament witnesses to the early Christians applying Jesus’ instruction from Matthew 18 in this expansive and universal way.
Now, concerning the kind of authoritative judgments—at a minimum, it’s disciplinary. The language of “binding and loosing” in the Jewish context refers to authoritative decision-making that pertains to disciplinary matters. But when we look at the early Church, we see that the apostles and other Christians viewed this authority as extending also to doctrinal matters.
And that brings us to Acts 15.
Luke tells us a major dispute arose in the Church of Antioch—do Gentile converts need to be circumcised to be saved? Some said yes, others said no.
The debate was so intense that not even Paul and Barnabas could settle the issue. So what do they do?
It was decided that Paul and Barnabas, along with others, would go to Jerusalem to consult “the apostles and the elders” about this question.
Now notice how closely this follows Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18.
Paul and Barnabas act like the “two or three witnesses.” And when they can’t resolve the issue, they take it to “the Church”—which is now clearly identified in this assembly of apostles and elders, not the local community in Antioch.
And this Jerusalem council isn’t just a local meeting. It acts in an official capacity representing Christ’s Church as such—the “Church” that Jesus promises to build on the rock in Matthew 16:18.
Now, what does this council do?
It issues decrees. Some are disciplinary—like abstaining from certain foods.
But others are doctrinal. For example, they decree that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be saved and must avoid sexual immorality.
Finally, the assembly of the apostles and elders bind Christians to accept these decrees. They say in verse 28, “[I]t has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.”
Necessary decrees aren’t advisory, they’re binding decisions. And they have divine authority behind them. In short, the council is exercising the binding authority given to “the Church” in Matthew 18:18.
And given that this council acts on behalf of Christ’s Church as such, it follows that obedience to these decrees is necessary to be in communion with Christ’s Church as such, not just a local community. Recall, Jesus said in Matthew 18:17 that if a person doesn’t listen to the Church’s judgment, treat him as a “gentile” or a “tax collector”—as someone outside the Christian community. The Christian community in view at the Council of Jerusalem is the universal Church.
So when we put Matthew 18 together with Acts 15, we get three important conclusions:
- The agency of “the Church” spoken of in Matthew 18:15-18 extends beyond a body of officials who represent a local church to a body of officials who represent the Church Christ built on the rock—the universal Church.
- That body of official representatives has authority to make binding judgments the acceptance of which is necessary for being in communion with Christ’s Church built on the rock—the universal Church.
- And those authoritative judgments include doctrine, not just discipline
Now, this authority to bind consciences to doctrine has implications for what Catholic apologist Ben Bollinger calls the “logic of infallibility.”
Suppose Christ’s Church required assent to an erroneous doctrinal judgment as a condition for communion. That would create a dilemma.
A Christian would have to either:
A) accept error to remain in communion
or
B) reject the error and break communion
But neither option works.
God wouldn’t require us to accept falsehood. And He wouldn’t require us to break unity with Christ’s Church, the reason being that there’s no way to found another. There’s only one church: Jesus’ Church.
So the only solution is this: when the Church definitively teaches and requires assent as a condition for union with it—when it does what the assembly of apostles and elders did at the Council of Jerusalem—it must be protected from error. In other words—it must be infallible.
Now here’s the next step.
So far, everything we’ve said is still compatible with the Protestant position—because they agree that the apostles exercised infallible authority.
But the real question is this:
Did that authority continue after the apostles?
To answer that, let’s go back to Acts 15.
Notice—it wasn’t just apostles at that council. It was also “elders”—the presbuteroi in Greek. Jimmy Akin made this point in his 2024 debate on sola scriptura with James White that unfortunately didn’t get the attention that it deserved.
These “elders” weren’t just a bunch of old guys. They were leaders in the early church, along with the apostles. And specifically, I submit they were the bishops of the first century.
Throughout the New Testament, presbuteros overlaps with episkopos—the Greek word for bishop.
For example, in 1 Timothy 3:1, Paul gives a list of characteristics for a “bishop” (episkopos). But in Titus 1:5, he gives a very similar list and says those are the characteristics of presbuteroi. Paul even switches without a beat to episkopos in verse 7.
Whether we call them elders or bishops, we know from 1 Timothy 3:1 they possess the “office of a bishop.” Paul uses the Greek word episkope, which means “the office of an overseer.” These “elders” are described as exercising this oversight ministry in Acts 20:28, where Paul says, “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [Greek, episkopous], to feed the Church of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood.”
For this reason, when I speak of “elders” throughout the rest of this episode I mean bishops.
Now, here’s the key point, something Akin briefly pointed out in his 2024 debate with White:
These elders were part of the same body of officials representing the universal Church in Acts 15. And they—together with the apostles—participated in exercising infallible agency to bind Christians to doctrinal decrees.
So now the question becomes: did that order of elders/bishops—an infallible agent—continue after the apostles died?
The earliest Christians say yes.
Take Clement of Rome, for example. Here’s what he writes in Chapter 42 of his Letter to the Corinthians:
And thus preaching through countries and cities, [the apostles] appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”
Clement confirms that the order of bishops continued beyond the apostles as the apostles’ direct successors. And notice Clement believed this was something prophesied, meaning it was divinely ordained.
Clement continues in Chapter 44,
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.
Again, for Clement, the office of the episcopate—the office of bishop—was the continuation of the ministry of the apostles, which, remember, included not only judicial governance but also doctrinal authority.
Irenaeus of Lyon is another early witness to this succession. Here’s what he writes in Book III, chapter three of his Against Heresies:
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
Notice that for Irenaeus the bishops were instituted by the apostles to succeed them in their “place of government.” That “place of government” for the apostles included both disciplinary and doctrinal authority.
So, it’s clear from early Christian testimony that the order of bishops succeeded the college of apostles as the official governors of Christ’s Church. And it was part of God’s plan.
What’s the upshot of all this? Infallible agency didn’t disappear. It continued.
The Council of Jerusalem proves that the order of bishops participated in infallible agency when representing the universal Church and issuing binding doctrinal decrees. So, if they were to represent the universal Church again, and bind Christians to assent to doctrine, then they would be exercising the same infallible agency as at the Council of Jerusalem.
Has that episcopal college represented the universal Church and bound Christians to assent to doctrine? Yes! They did so at ecumenical councils. That same episcopal college, speaking on behalf of the entire Church, made doctrinal pronouncements the acceptance of which was a condition for being in communion with Christ’s Church.
Given the logic of infallibility, those teachings are an infallible rule of faith that is not Scripture.
And that means sola scriptura is false.
Now, there are a few potential comebacks that a Protestant might make.
One is that, at the Council of Jerusalem, the locus of infallible agency was with the apostles, not the elders (or bishops).
But that just begs the question. My argument here is that the elders did participate with the apostles in exercising infallible agency. Recall, the council declared in Acts 15:28, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” The elders were part of that “us.”
Now, a Protestant might push back and say that the elders participated in exercising infallible agency only because the apostles were around to exercise such agency. Since all the apostles died, the elders (again, or bishops) can no longer collectively bind Christians with that same infallible authority.
So how can we respond to that?
First, we’d have to ask, “Why is it that only the apostles can exercise infallible agency?” Most Protestants will say, “Because the apostles were promised the gift of inspiration—a gift whereby the Holy Spirit would prompt them to know divinely revealed truths.”
But that assumes inspiration is the only one way to be infallible. And that’s simply not true. An agent can be infallible merely by the fact that God promises to protect that agent from doctrinal error. And that’s exactly what we profess as Catholics concerning the infallibility of the magisterium. For more on the conceptual distinction between infallibility and inspiration, see my video “The Argument for Sola Scriptura that is Fallacious.”
Second, the infallible agency of the Jerusalem council doesn’t have to be rooted only in the inspiration of the apostles. Given the logic of infallibility that I spoke about earlier, infallibility can also follow from the binding nature of doctrinal decrees. And the assembly of the elders—with the apostles—did just that: they required assent to their doctrinal decrees as a condition for communion with Christ’s Church as such.
Now, a Protestant might switch gears here and say that maybe the apostles don’t need to be around to have infallibility by way of inspiration. But they would need to be around for the bishops to exercise that sort of binding authority.
The problem there is that it doesn’t fit with the apostles involving the elders in the first place. Why would the apostles involve the elders in the Council’s doctrinal decrees if they didn’t intend for them to continue exercising that sort of binding authority—infallible authority—after they’re gone? The apostles were completely equipped to handle the issues themselves.
So, the apostles’ very decision to involve the “elders” in the Council’s doctrinal decrees strongly indicates they intended the “elders/bishops” to succeed them in exercising that infallible authority—at least when representing the universal Church, like they did at the Council.
And that’s exactly what the biblical and historical evidence suggests they did.
I already presented at least some of the historical evidence with Clement and Irenaeus.
The biblical evidence is most clear in the pastoral epistles. Paul instructs both Timothy and Titus to bind those whom they govern to sound doctrine (check out 2 Timothy 4:1-5 and Titus 1:9-14).
Though this refers to Timothy and Titus’s individual teaching authority as bishops, we can reasonably infer that the infallible authority would be present for the order bishops if they were to issue binding doctrinal decrees on behalf of the universal church—again, like at the Council of Jerusalem.
So, insofar as the apostles transmitted their authority to the bishops, the bishops, when representing the universal Church, can exercise that binding authority without the apostles being around.
Now, there’s one last possible counter. A Protestant might say that the decrees at the Jerusalem council were infallible solely because of their divinely revealed content.
But that’s a red herring. The issue is not whether the content of what God reveals is infallible. What we’re after is whether the agent’s declaration as to what constitutes that divine revelation is guaranteed to be protected from error—i.e., infallible. And like I said, given the logic of infallibility, and the fact that the elders—with the apostles—bind Christians to assent to their doctrinal decrees, we can conclude that their judgments as to what constitutes the truth about divine revelation is infallible.
So, let’s sum everything up:
At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the order of elders/bishops participate with the apostles in officially representing the universal Church and exercising infallible agency to bind Christians to belief in doctrine.
That order of elders/bishops continued beyond the original twelve apostles as their successors, thereby proving that such infallible agency continued.
That order of elders/bishops exercised such infallible agency at ecumenical councils binding Christians to believe doctrine as a condition for communion with Christ’s Church as such.
Those infallible doctrines constitute an infallible rule of faith that is not Scripture.
Therefore, Scripture is not the only infallible rule of faith—that’s to say, Sola Scriptura is false.
Well, my friends, that’s it for today!
If you found this video helpful, make sure to like it, comment below, and share it with someone who might benefit. And don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t already.
For more resources, check out catholic.com and my personal website karlobroussard.com.
If you’d like me to speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.
And please consider supporting this work on Patreon. For just $5 a month, you’ll get early access, ad-free viewing, and access to my six-hour course How to Talk About Morality in an Age of Moral Relativism. You can sign up at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out.
Thanks for hanging out—and I’ll see you next time. God bless.