{"id":6244,"date":"2016-02-22T13:25:26","date_gmt":"2016-02-22T17:25:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=6244"},"modified":"2017-03-27T12:45:49","modified_gmt":"2017-03-27T16:45:49","slug":"st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html","title":{"rendered":"St. Paul’s Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
\"PaulRembrandt3\"<\/div>\n
St. Paul in Prison<\/em> (1627), by Rembrandt (1606-1669)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

(4-3-10)<\/p>\n

* * * * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

First of all, before I get to my argument, let\u2019s get some preliminaries out of the way. Readers can rest assured that I greatly love and revere Holy Scripture as much as any Protestant does. That\u2019s not at issue. The issue is sola Scriptura<\/i>: whether Scripture is the only infallible authority. Scripture is a set of divinely inspired books. Sola Scriptura<\/span> is a principle or rule of faith that has to do with how much authority<\/span> Scripture has, and its relation to Christian Tradition and the Christian Church. Thus, they are two very distinct things: related<\/span>, but essentially different.<\/p>\n

A fair number of Protestants (especially zealous online apologists) have a very annoying habit of equating sola Scriptura<\/span> (i.e., the view that Scripture is the only final and infallible authority in the Christian life) and love and reverence for Scripture, as if they were exactly the same thing. For some Protestants, in other words, for a Catholic to deny sola Scriptura<\/span> automatically means that he is somehow demoting or denigrating or despising Scripture. It\u2019s either Protestantism or the highway. No non-Protestant (according to this mentality of some<\/span> \u2014 not all<\/span> \u2014 Protestants) can love Scripture, by definition or inexorable conclusion, if they also accept the authority of tradition and the Church (both of which are repeatedly asserted in Scripture itself).<\/p>\n

One can readily observe both the arrogance and muddleheadedness of such a stance: especially the more one studies what is actually in Scripture. The one who reveres Scripture the most is the one who follows its manifest teachings<\/span>, and doesn\u2019t pick and choose what he likes and dislikes (\u201ccafeteria Christianity\u201d). Since an authoritative tradition and an authoritative Church are very much part of biblical teaching (as I will demonstrate below), to include them in one\u2019s paradigm of authority is<\/span> to accept and love Scripture, not to \u201cdemote\u201d it. It is taking the Bible at its word.<\/p>\n

But because of tunnel vision, wooden, either\/or, arrogant, illogical thinking of this sort (sadly, very common), I have to defend my love of Scripture simply because I am a Catholic and deny sola Scriptura<\/span>. But once in a while it is worth it to set the record straight.<\/p>\n

My position, argued many times, is that Scripture is for the most part clear and easy to understand (especially in the major issues), for those willing to follow it where it leads, and led by the Holy Spirit and regenerate. I have long since argued, for example, that the Holy Trinity can easily be defended by Scripture alone. I did this myself 28 years ago, and the argument is just as strong now as it ever was.<\/p>\n

The Church is needed not so much because the Bible is unclear, but because the heretical mindset can and will twist and distort the Scripture any number of ways; therefore an authority outside of Scripture is necessary in order to confirm true doctrine and to maintain orthodoxy. The history of Protestantism and all the relativism and doctrinal chaos therein amply illustrates this. Thus, St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622, a Doctor of the Church), writes (thanks to blog regular Ben M. for this):<\/p>\n

It is quite true that Holy Scripture contains fully and clearly all doctrines necessary to salvation we do not doubt it; It is also true that it is very useful to interpret Holy Scripture by comparing passages together, and bringing the whole into an analysis of doctrine. But I must always believe and affirm that, notwithstanding the admirable perspicuity of Holy Scripture in all things necessary to our salvation, the human mind does not always find its right meaning but is liable to err, and practically does very often err<\/i> in interpreting passages which are of great importance to the confirmation of the Faith.<\/p>\n

Witness the Lutheran and Calvinistic writers; they, though leaders<\/i> of the so-called Reformation, are involved in irreconcilable differences<\/i> as to the meaning of the words of institution of the Holy Eucharist; and while each side maintains that they have diligently and faithfully studied the sense of those words,<\/i> taking them with the context of Holy Scripture generally, and comparing the whole with the analogy of Faith, nevertheless they come to very different conclusions.<\/i> The Word of God is clear enough, but our human minds are cloudy, and, like bats, cannot face the light.<\/p>\n

(To a Gentleman on the Right Use of Scripture,<\/i> July 7, 1619; A selection from the spiritual letters of s. Francis de Sales, Bishop and Prince of Geneva,<\/i> 1880, pp. 162-163<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now that the nonsense<\/a>, and flotsam and jetsam<\/a> is cleared away, we can move ahead and commence our present topic:<\/p>\n

Ephesians 4:4-6, 11-16, 21-25<\/b> There is one body<\/span> and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope<\/span> that belongs to your call<\/span>, [5] one Lord, <\/span>one faith<\/span>, one baptism, <\/span>[6] one God and Father of us all<\/span>, who is above all<\/span> and through all and in all<\/span>. . . . [11] And his gifts<\/span> were that some should be apostles<\/span>, some prophets<\/span>, some evangelists<\/span>, some pastors<\/span> and teachers, <\/span>[12] to equip the saints<\/span> for the work of ministry<\/span>, for building up the body of Christ<\/span>, [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith<\/span> and of the knowledge of the Son of God<\/span>, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ<\/span>; [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine<\/span>, by the cunning<\/span> of men, by their craftiness in deceitful<\/span> wiles. [15] Rather, speaking the truth<\/span> in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into <\/span>Christ<\/span>, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together<\/span> by every joint<\/span> with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself<\/span> in love. . . . [21] assuming that you have heard about him<\/span><\/span> and were taught in him, as <\/span>the truth is in Jesus<\/span>. [22] Put off your old nature<\/span> which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful <\/span>lusts, [23] and be renewed in the spirit of your minds<\/span>, [24] and put on the new nature<\/span>, created after the likeness of God<\/span> in true righteousness and holiness. [25] Therefore, putting away falsehood, let every one speak the truth with his neighbor<\/span>, for we are members one of another.<\/span>
\n<\/b>[red<\/span> = Church theme \/ blue<\/span> = truth and falsity and doctrinal motifs \/ purple<\/span> = theosis or unity with God or indwelling elements]
\n<\/b><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I made an analogical argument from Ephesians 4:11-15 above in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/a><\/i> (pp. 15-16), in response to the alleged sola Scriptura<\/span> prooftext, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. That book was completed in 1996, and parts of it were written as early as 1991. Here is the heart of that argument:<\/p>\n

Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is \u201cequipped,\u201d \u201cbuilt up,\u201d brought into \u201cunity and mature manhood,\u201d \u201cknowledge\u201d of Jesus, \u201cthe fulness of Christ,\u201d and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the \u201cperfecting\u201d of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn\u2019t even mention Scripture.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all nonscriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in an exclusive sense.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The fact remains that sola Scriptura<\/i> is nowhere taught in Scripture. I\u2019ve seen the innumerable attempted prooftexts, and have written an entire book about the topic<\/a> [and now a second one<\/a>, too]. None of them succeed. It\u2019s merely an assumed, axiomatic viewpoint imposed onto Holy Scripture. Scripture itself gives equal authority to the Church and to Sacred, Apostolic Tradition. And we see that in the text under present consideration.<\/p>\n

To expand the original argument regarding Ephesians 4 a bit: Protestants are saying that Scripture is the rule of faith. It is the sole and ultimate criterion for theological doctrine and truth, insofar as it is regarded as the only infallible authority. Therefore, it stands to reason that in a passage talking about truth over and over again, and denouncing falsehood, and referring to \u201cone faith\u201d and \u201cthe unity of faith\u201d, that Scripture would likely<\/span> be mentioned (under the erroneous Protestant premise). It\u2019s not absolutely necessary, but it would be probable<\/span>, I think.<\/p>\n

This would be a logical place for Paul to reiterate that the Scripture is the rule of faith. But he never does that. He refers repeatedly to truth and denounces falsehood, and refers to the Church over and over: \u201cone body\u201d; [listing of Church offices]; \u201cbody of Christ\u201d; \u201cthe whole body\u201d; \u201cbodily growth\u201d; \u201cmembers of one another\u201d.<\/p>\n

Now, under Catholic assumptions of the \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d (Church, Scripture, Tradition), this is perfectly plausible and would be predictable. Not all have to be mentioned in the same context. Any one of them can be (or all of them, or any combination thereof), because they are all authoritative.<\/p>\n

In this case, it is the Church that is highlighted (which is why I compared it to 1 Tim 3:15: the Church as the \u201cpillar and bulwark of the truth\u201d). In other places, tradition is synonymous with \u201ctruth\u201d or \u201cthe gospel\u201d or \u201cthe faith\u201d and other synonyms (as I have shown elsewhere).<\/p>\n

But granting a view where Scripture, not the Church, is the ground of truth and the only infallible rule of faith, always and necessarily, it strikes me as quite odd that in this passage, filled with allusions to truth and falsity, the Bible is never mentioned. This is not (lest we be witlessly accused of it yet again) \u201crunning down the Bible\u201d (!); it is, rather, evidence against the unbiblical doctrine of sola Scriptura<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The words \u201cScripture\u201d or \u201cScriptures\u201d appear 51 times in the New Testament. Yet in eight of his thirteen epistles (2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon) St. Paul (it may be surprising to learn) never uses<\/span> either of these words. He uses it only 14 times<\/span> altogether: in Romans (6), 1 Corinthians (2), Galatians (3), 1 Timothy (2), and 2 Timothy (1).<\/p>\n

Likewise, \u201cword of God\u201d appears 43 times in the New Testament, and many of these (as in Old Testament prophetic utterances) are intended in the sense of \u201coral proclamation\u201d rather than \u201cScripture\u201d (especially apart from the Gospels). St. Paul uses the phrase only ten times, in nine different epistles. And it is by no means certain that any individual instance refers without question<\/span> specifically to Holy Scripture, rather than to oral proclamation of apostolic tradition. I suspect that it is much more likely the latter sense in most or all cases.<\/p>\n

But, to be fair, I won\u2019t include this phrase in my analysis, and will also do the same with regard to \u201cgospel.\u201d In a way that was preaching Scripture (based on OT messianic passages; in another sense it was an oral tradition with radically new elements. I\u2019ll consider both of these a \u201cwash\u201d as to the relation between Scripture and tradition \/ Church. But respectable arguments could be made either way, I think.<\/p>\n

If we survey \u201cBody (of Christ)\u201d in Paul we find 19 appearances:<\/p>\n

Romans<\/span> \u201cbody of Christ\u201d [1] (7:4) \/ \u201cbody\u201d [2] (12:4-5)<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians<\/span> \u201cbody\u201d [5] (10:17; 12:12-13, 25, 27; + several more times in making analogies to the human body)<\/p>\n

Ephesians<\/span> \u201chis body\u201d [3] (1:23: 5:23, 30) \/ \u201cbody\u201d [3] (3:6; 4:4, 16) \/ \u201cbody of Christ\u201d [1] (4:12)<\/p>\n

Colossians<\/span> \u201chis body\u201d [1] (1:24) \/ \u201cbody\u201d [3] (1:18; 2:19; 3:15)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And here is Paul\u2019s use of \u201cChurch\u201d \/ ekklesia<\/span> (in more than merely a local <\/span>sense of congregation or building) in his epistles (20 total times):<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians<\/span> [6] (5:12; 6:4; 10:32; 11:22; 12:28; 15:9)<\/p>\n

Galatians<\/span> [1] (1:13)<\/p>\n

Ephesians<\/span> [9] (1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32)<\/p>\n

Philippians<\/span> [1] (3:6)<\/p>\n

Colossians<\/span> [2] (1:18, 24)<\/p>\n

1 Timothy<\/span> [1] (3:15)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Likewise, here is Paul\u2019s four uses of (apostolic) \u201ctradition(s)\u201d (paradosis<\/span>):<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians<\/span> [1] (11:2)<\/p>\n

Colossians<\/span> [1] (2:8)<\/p>\n

2 Thessalonians<\/span> [2] (2:15; 3:6)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But the word \u201ctradition\u201d is not the only word Paul uses for this notion, by a long shot. There is also the concept of \u201creceiving\u201d (tradition) and \u201cdelivering\u201d or passing it on. Three of the above passages on \u201ctradition\u201d contain this motif. This mention of some sort of tradition passed down (primarily orally; through preaching) can be seen in passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:1-2; 15:3; Galatians 1:9, 12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2, for eight more instances.<\/p>\n

There are at least fifteen other passages that exhibit the notion of apostolic (and oral) tradition, expressed in various different ways (including \u201cword of God,\u201d \u201cpreaching,\u201d etc.):<\/p>\n

Romans<\/span> [3] (6:17; 10:8; 16:25)<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians<\/span> [1] (1:18)<\/p>\n

2 Corinthians<\/span> [1] (3:6)<\/p>\n

Ephesians<\/span> [1] (1:13)<\/p>\n

Philippians<\/span> [2] (2:16; 4:9)<\/p>\n

Colossians<\/span> [2] (1:5; 1:6)<\/p>\n

1 Thessalonians<\/span> [1] (1:6)<\/p>\n

2 Thessalonians<\/span> [1] (3:14)<\/p>\n

2 Timothy<\/span> [3] (4:2, 15, 17)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But let us be as fair-minded as we can and anticipate one probable objection. One could plausibly contend that when Paul cited Old Testament Scripture he was, by that action, giving Scripture authority, and this would be the equivalent of mentioning (the word) \u201cScripture\u201d. I think this is a valid point. St. Paul made 84 such citations (I found a wonderful chart<\/a> that gives all the OT citations in the NT). Here they are (minus already-recorded instances of \u201cScripture\u201d being mentioned):<\/p>\n

Romans<\/span> [44] (2:6; 24; 3:4; 10-18; 4:7,8, 17, 18, 22; 8:36; 9:7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 25-26, 27-28, 29, 33; 10:5, 6-8, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21; 11:3, 4, 8, 9, 26-27, 34-35; 12:19, 20; 13:9; 14:11; 15:3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21)<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians<\/span> [18] (1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20; 5:13; 6:16; 9:9; 10:7, 26, 28; 14:21; 15:27, 32, 45, 54, 55;<\/p>\n

2 Corinthians<\/span> [8] 4:13, 6:2, 16, 17-18; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1<\/p>\n

Galatians<\/span> [7] 3:6, 10, 11, 12, 13; 4:27; 5:14<\/p>\n

Ephesians<\/span> [6] 4:8, 25, 26; 5:14, 31; 6:2-3<\/p>\n

Philippians<\/span> [1] 2:10-11<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

By the same token, if a citation of the Old Testament is to be regarded as evidence in favor of Paul having Scripture in mind, then I submit that several terms describing the content of the Christian faith without mentioning Scripture are likewise (by this somewhat subjective method) reasonably categorized under \u201ctradition.\u201d Here I would add the following:<\/p>\n

Romans<\/span> \u201cthe truth\u201d [1] (2:8) \/ \u201cthe doctrine\u201d [1] (16:17)<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians<\/span> \u201cthe truth\u201d [1] (2:13) \/ \u201cmy message\u201d [1] (2:4) \/ \u201csupernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ\u201d [an oral tradition not in the OT; 1] (10:4)<\/p>\n

2 Corinthians<\/span> \u201cthe truth\u201d [3] (4:2; 11:10; 13:8) \/ \u201cmessage of reconciliation\u201d [1] (5:19) \/ \u201cministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life\u201d [1] (3:6)<\/p>\n

Galatians<\/span> \u201cthe faith\u201d [1] (1:23) \/ \u201cthe truth\u201d [1] (5:7)<\/p>\n

Ephesians<\/span> \u201cthe faith\u201d [1] (4:13)<\/p>\n

Philippians<\/span> \u201cthe faith\u201d [1] (1:27)<\/p>\n

Colossians<\/span> \u201cthe faith\u201d [2] (1:23; 2:7) \/ \u201cthe truth\u201d [1] (1:5)<\/p>\n

1 Thessalonians<\/span> \u201cthe truth\u201d [3] (2:10, 12, 13)<\/p>\n

1 Timothy<\/span> \u201cthe faith\u201d [7] (1:2; 3:9, 13; 4:1; 5:8; 6:10, 21) \/ \u201cthe truth\u201d [2] (2:4; 4:3) \/ \u201cthe commandment\u201d [1] (6:14) \/ \u201cdoctrine\u201d [1] (4:6) \/ \u201cteaching\u201d [2] (4:16; 6:1)<\/p>\n

2 Timothy<\/span> \u201cthe faith\u201d [1] (4:7) \/ \u201cthe truth\u201d [6] (1:14; 2:18, 25; 3:7, 8; 4:4) \/ \u201cmessage\u201d [2] (4:15, 17)<\/p>\n

Titus<\/span> \u201cthe faith\u201d [2] (1:13; 3:15) \/ \u201cthe truth\u201d [1] (1:1) \/ \u201cdoctrine\u201d [1] (2:10)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This adds up to 46 more times where Paul mentions tradition \/ received and passed-down doctrine, using a similar term or concept. In surveying Paul\u2019s thought-world, then, as indicated by his choices of words and notions, in his teaching of the gospel and the content of the Christian faith in his epistles, we arrive at the following tally:<\/p>\n

\u201cScripture(s)\u201d:<\/span> 14 + 84 citations of OT = 98<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cChurch\u201d <\/span>(20) and \u201cBody (of Christ)\u201d <\/span>(19) = <\/span>39<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cTradition\u201d and equivalent terms and concepts:<\/span> 73<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We can see that the tradition and Church legs of the \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d are indeed prominent and together make up 53% of the 210 total instances, whereas Scripture appears 47% of the time (112-98). Moreover, I have not included obvious aspects of Church authority such as bishops and elders; the Jerusalem Council, etc. That would add even more non-scriptural authority to the mix. Let\u2019s see how Paul\u2019s word usage breaks down for each of his 13 books (Philemon contains no such references):<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Romans<\/span> \u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 50 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d and \u201cBody\u201d: 3 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 5<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians<\/span> \u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 20 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cBody\u201d: 11 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 8<\/p>\n

2 Corinthians<\/span> \u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 8 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cBody\u201d: 0 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 6<\/p>\n

Galatians <\/span>\u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 10 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cBody\u201d: 1 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 4<\/p>\n

Ephesians<\/span> \u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 6 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cBody\u201d: 16 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 2<\/p>\n

Philippians<\/span> \u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 1 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cBody\u201d: 1 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 3<\/p>\n

Colossians<\/span> \u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 0 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cBody\u201d: 6 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 6<\/p>\n

1 Thessalonians<\/span> \u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 0 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cBody\u201d: 0 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 5<\/p>\n

2 Thessalonians<\/span> \u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 0 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cBody\u201d: 0 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 3<\/p>\n

1 Timothy<\/span> \u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 2 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cBody\u201d: 1 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 13<\/p>\n

2 Timothy<\/span> \u201cScripture(s)\u201d: 1 \/ \u201cChurch\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cBody\u201d: 0 \/ \u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 14<\/p>\n

Titus <\/span>\u201cTradition\u201d and equivalents: 4<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Some (I think) interesting facts drawn from the above survey:<\/p>\n

1) In eight of the twelve epistles above, the combination Church\/Tradition appears more than Scripture. In six of these eight, the \u201ctradition\u201d category alone outnumbers Scripture; two by very wide margins (2 Timothy: 14-1; 1 Timothy: 13-2).<\/p>\n

2) In two of the four books with more mention of Scripture, the tally is very close (1 Corinthians: 20-19; 2 Corinthians: 8-6). Only two have lopsided margins (Romans: 50-8; Galatians: 10-5). In both these cases, Church\/Tradition still would have prevailed if it weren\u2019t for including OT citations. And in the two books to the Corinthians, without citations, the margins would also have been very wide in favor of non-Scripture.<\/p>\n

3) Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Titus, and Philemon neither mention \u201cScripture\u201d nor cite the OT, and Philippians doesn\u2019t mention the word and makes just one OT citation.<\/p>\n

4) In Ephesians, the Church\/Tradition ratio to Scripture is 18-6; other books are similar: Philippians (4-1), Colossians (12-0), 1 Thessalonians (5-0), 2 Thessalonians (3-0), Titus (4-0). Would any sola Scriptura<\/span> advocate have predicted such an outcome before studying these words? Not likely . . .<\/p>\n

5) If it were not for Paul\u2019s massive citing of the OT in Romans, the figures would be very lopsided indeed, tilting toward Church and tradition. But even in Romans, Church \/tradition notions appear eight times, which is more than \u201cScripture\u201d \/ OT citations appear in nine epistles, and tied with 2 Corinthians. But citation of the OT is just as consistent with the Catholic \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d rule of faith as it is with sola Scriptura<\/span>, and doesn\u2019t prove the latter at all. All his frequent citations prove is that he wanted to make an elaborate case drawing from old covenant precedent. In any event, we must try to find some objective, fair way to do these word comparisons, and I have done my best.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I conclude, then, that it is implausible for sola Scriptura<\/span> to be considered the Pauline rule of faith. The biblical facts just don\u2019t add up.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

St. Paul in Prison (1627), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] (4-3-10) * * * * * First of all, before I get to my argument, let\u2019s get some preliminaries out of the way. Readers can rest assured that I greatly love and revere Holy Scripture as much as any Protestant does. That\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":6246,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[598,779,514,52,33,246,32,35,47,932],"class_list":["post-6244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-apostolic-tradition","tag-bible-only","tag-catholic-tradition","tag-christian-authority","tag-development-of-doctrine","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-scripture-alone","tag-sola-scriptura","tag-tradition"],"yoast_head":"\nSt. Paul's Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"It is implausible for sola Scriptura to be considered the Pauline rule of faith, on the basis of examining what words he uses and how often he uses them.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"St. Paul's Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"It is implausible for sola Scriptura to be considered the Pauline rule of faith, on the basis of examining what words he uses and how often he uses them.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-02-22T17:25:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-27T16:45:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/02\/PaulRembrandt3.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"631\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"768\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html\",\"name\":\"St. Paul's Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-02-22T17:25:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-27T16:45:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"It is implausible for sola Scriptura to be considered the Pauline rule of faith, on the basis of examining what words he uses and how often he uses them.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"St. Paul’s Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"St. Paul's Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura","description":"It is implausible for sola Scriptura to be considered the Pauline rule of faith, on the basis of examining what words he uses and how often he uses them.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"St. Paul's Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura","og_description":"It is implausible for sola Scriptura to be considered the Pauline rule of faith, on the basis of examining what words he uses and how often he uses them.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2016-02-22T17:25:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-27T16:45:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":631,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/02\/PaulRembrandt3.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html","name":"St. Paul's Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-02-22T17:25:26+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-27T16:45:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"It is implausible for sola Scriptura to be considered the Pauline rule of faith, on the basis of examining what words he uses and how often he uses them.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/02\/st-pauls-word-selection-vs-sola-scriptura.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"St. Paul’s Word Selection vs. Sola Scriptura"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6244","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6244"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6244\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6246"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}