The doctrine of sola scriptura sits at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. However, it is put into serious doubt when just two questions are asked: Did the apostles themselves operate under a sola scriptura framework? And if not, when did this principle become true?
Question 1: Did the apostles operate under a sola scriptura framework?
The only possible answers to this question are “yes” and “no.” Some, like the Protestants on the THEOTIVITY podcast, argue that the Apostles did hold to it. For example, in a recent YouTube short, the host argues, “Peter actually has one of the strongest affirmations of the doctrine of sola scriptura in his letters.”
Others, like James White, argue that although they believe that sola scriptura is currently true, the apostles did not operate under that framework during times of revelation. Here he is making his case:
Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?
As you can see, we have two different modes of argumentation here.
Obviously, as a Catholic, I don’t believe that sola scriptura was true at any point in history. However, it doesn’t take a scholar to recognize the unusual circumstances that would apply if the apostles had preached in a sola scriptura framework. Why would those listening to apostolic preaching have any reason to take what they said seriously unless it was written down? Is the implication here that what the apostles said was not to be taken as authoritative unless or until it was written down on a Post-It note and handed to the individuals they were speaking to?
However, another problem arises with the alternative view. If the apostles did not operate under a sola scriptura framework, then no Bible verse that claims to teach sola scriptura could be used to demonstrate it. After all, if the apostles did not operate under that framework, they certainly wouldn’t have written letters to people encouraging them to live by it! Therefore, for proponents of this view, any biblical argument for sola scriptura fails, unless the verse says something like “In the future, when I die, you need to go by Scripture alone.” No such verse exists.
For those who believe that sola scriptura is currently true but was not true in the apostolic era, a second question can be asked.
Question 2: If sola scriptura was not true during the Apostolic Age, when did it become true?
This question is a natural progression of the arguments stated above. If sola scriptura was at one time not true, and then later became true, there has to have been a time period in which it became true. James White argues that this happened after Scripture exists in such a form as to be able to function as the rule of faith. Here is an argument in his book on sola scriptura:
Sola scriptura can be true when the scriptura exists in such a form as to be able to function as the rule of faith. Logically, during times of revelation, what was possessed by the church as God-breathed revelation was in transition. When that process came to an end (enscripturation), what was and is the final authority? That which is produced by the Spirit (Scripture), or that which is claimed by an ecclesiastical group as “tradition” but which we cannot test or observe over time?
The argument seems to be that sola scriptura became true when Scripture existed in a form that could function as a rule of faith. However, it’s not entirely clear to me when exactly this would be.
In a recent debate, White argued that this would have happened with the death of the last apostle. However, even though Scripture would have been written by this time, it was far from anything that could function as a rule of faith. Most Christians at this time would have had access to very few books of the New Testament, if any. Even if they had access to every book, there were certain controversies on which books were to be taken as authoritative. Even though these books existed, there’s no possible way most Christians during this time could have operated under this framework.
In any case, if sola scriptura became true at a certain time, whether it be in the first century or later when the canon was finalized, we would expect to see writings from Christians explaining this shift. This is a fundamental issue of authority, so it would not make sense for this to happen without explicit writings from Church leaders. Since we have no such thing, I contend that no such shift happened.
Taken together, these problems suggest that sola scriptura is not the self-evident, apostolic principle it is often claimed to be. Rather it is a theological development that struggles to account for both the practice of the early Church and its own basis for authority.