Saint Paul vs. Sola Scriptura

A Dilemma for Protestants.

One of the great weaknesses of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the notion that the Bible is the sole authority and justification for establishing any doctrine, is that it has no way of justifying what counts as Biblical cannon. Within Protestant traditions there are 66 books of scripture, while in the Catholic tradition, there are an agreed upon 73 books of scripture. The Catholic can easily say that since the Institution of the Catholic Church is the visible manifestation of the authority of Jesus Christ, we can know by looking at her decrees as precedent for what counts as Scripture. Saint Paul says as much, declaring,

if I am delayed, you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’s household,the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.— 1 Timothy 3:15–16

Here Paul is speaking to the nature of the Church. If Paul is speaking to the nature of the church itself, then what is undeniable is that the church (whatever else it may be) acts as the foundation of the truth. The word used for foundation is ἑδραίωμα, which means, per HELPS Word-studies

the base, which ultimately supports the foundation itself

For a Catholic, scripture qua scripture is not the foundation of Truth, but rather it is only foundational insofar as it is part of the Church’s tradition.

Now, granted, some Protestants might say that the church isn’t an institution per se, but rather merely all true believers. But that would render Paul’s message contrary to sola scriptura. For, if we read it in such a manner it comes out to Paul saying,

if I am delayed, you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’s household,the church — which is the sum total of true believers-of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

If it were sacred scripture which was the source of doctrine for the sum total of true believers, then it would follow Paul spoke in error, since scripture would be the foundation of the truth. Further, biting the bullet would mean believers themselves would be more foundational as truth bearers over scriptures, which would be a full admission of a rampant relativism.

Another answer given by James White in his debate with Patrick Madrid is that,

it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

The problem is that this response is fallacious in two regards. White equivocates on the term ‘truth’ as it exists in Christ and as it exists in his word. While scripture is indeed God-breathed, its truth is a derived truth, from which it is granted by the decree of God himself. God is truth itself, but the scriptures are a truth, just like any truth man preaches. What gives either scripture or the word of man its truth is if it reflects what primarily exists in the being of God.

Furthermore, White shifts the goal post. The argument is not that sola scriptura is “a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth”. Rather Sola Scriptura is a denial of the Church’s Foundational authority as the pillar of truth.

So, the protestant can either accept all true believes are the foundation of truth over scripture, or they can accept — like Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox- that the nature of the church is institutional and the scriptures are a primary, but not a sole, part of being the foundation of the Truth. On either horn of the dilemma, Sola Scriptura is falsified.