Authority precedes Unity

And why not even a divinely inspired book causes it

What Jesus wants for Christians

“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me,” John 17: 20-23. Jesus prays to the Father that Christians can be one as he and the Father are one. This is a prayer meant for people to come to believe in him and know that the Father sent his Son to save the world. Sins against Christian unity act against the desire of our Lord and actively hurt the spread of his Gospel.

This means it is important to understand what Christian unity is. Christian unity is a mark of the Church professed in the Nicene Creed (that the Church is one)¹ and the marks of the Church are inherently bound with who God is. This is meant to say that God is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic and that is why the Church has these marks.² Although some Christians hurl accusations of not being Christian at each other, “Catholics and Evangelicals acknowledge that the disunity of Christians impairs our witness. Our unity in Christ is something the world must see in order that they might know the power of his love.”³

This article is not meant to be a refutation of Sola Scriptura, but it will address authority, and WAY too many non-Catholic Christians rely on it. Authority is something that a book can have (and in this case, does have), although it cannot ever enforce it. There are different kinds of authority that many people misunderstand. There are laws, but there are also police officers and a justice system that actually enforces the laws. As an example, a school handbook that says you need to keep your shirt tucked in at all times is meaningless if the teachers never correct you, or if the teachers disagree about what the handbook says. A book cannot in virtue of itself produce the effect listed within its pages.⁴

Heresy

Christianity has had many false and harmful beliefs come about through the centuries. This was warned by Paul in 2 Timothy 4:3-4, saying, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.” Similarly, 2 Peter 2:1 reads, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” This presents a serious problem among Christians of determining what teachings are and are not heretical.

The very first heresy was an appeal to Scripture, since men were teaching that you must be circumcised to be saved. In this situation, Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to ask apostles and elders about it (Acts 15:1-2). This was the response of the Christians of the early Church because they recognized Church authority. A problem arises because the Council was authoritative in its decree before the words were written by St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. The Christians did not wait to implement this until it was found in Scripture, so this shows a discontinuity between the early Church and Christians without apostolic succession. The earliest Christians seem to have understood that one cannot just use your personal interpretation of the Bible to dispute someone else’s personal interpretation. “The problem is that there are differing interpretations of scripture and Christians are told that these can be resolved by a simple appeal to Scripture. But is it possible to resolve the problem of differing interpretations of scripture by an appeal to another interpretation of Scripture?”⁵

Appeals to Scripture

The Devil himself appealed to Scriptures when tempting Jesus in the desert. He made appeals to Scripture, and although Jesus responded with Scripture, that only confuses the issue for those who solely rely on it. “All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone.”⁶

An authority is necessary, not to tell Christians how to interpret each verse in Scripture, but to set up guardrails of orthodoxy and maintain what cannot be interpreted from Scripture. Otherwise, there is no real reason to chastise another for his heretical beliefs other than from a misunderstanding. There are no real grounds that one can assert they individually have the right interpretation over another aside from a sense of pride. One can assert that true Christians will understand the Bible correctly, but that creates a lot of division on a principle that is not found in Scripture. However, if there is an authority to settle doctrinal disagreements, then Christian unity can be maintained. If there is an authority that is legitimately able to say what is and is not within the bounds of orthodox Christian belief, then there can be clear lines about what should and should not be believed by Christians and all can be one.

Sola Scriptura is a BIG commitment

“A [necessary] corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone—or everyone—else says.”⁷ This worldview has an authority, but it rests in the individual. This means either that God can directly give that authority to individuals, or there is no set authority. The former requires problems because Christians should hesitate to say God gives men authority to interpret his Scriptures incorrectly. The latter seems to be the hill Protestants die on, since it’s bold to claim that their personal interpretation is correct above all others. The claim that the essential beliefs from the Bible are perspicuous is proven wrong because not all who believe agree on the quote unquote “essential doctrines.”

There is a surprising amount of biblical evidence suggesting that interpreting Scripture in isolation⁸ can be very dangerous. As St. Peter warns us, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures,” (2 Pet 3:15-16). In this warning, we find Peter saying that reading St. Paul can be dangerous and lead to one’s destruction. This should give many pause in being so sure about how they read a passage.

The Ethiopian eunuch gives us an example of someone who is humble and does not rely on his own interpretation, but looks to someone well equipped to teach and preach to him about the Scriptures. “Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’” (Acts 8:30-31). These are powerful words worthy of reflection for all Christians to come to Scripture with an attitude of humility and prayer, having reverence for God’s Word. This story is especially powerful, because it deals with a passage from the Old Testament. The eunuch is reading from the prophet Isaiah and he asks if what is being said is about himself or someone else. Philip then uses this situation, “and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus,” (Acts 8:35), and baptized him.

A sad example of what happens to Christian unity without authority

One pop-culture reference that is surprisingly important to bring up is that of Dr. William Lane Craig.⁹ There is no intention to claim his academic work is merely at a pop-culture level, but to say that he is someone who is relatively well-known for defending God’s existence, the Resurrection, and hard passages in the Old Testament, among other things.¹⁰ However, there is one particularly interesting feature: his Christology. Craig denies that Jesus has a human soul and denies that Jesus has a human will. These are the big ones to focus on, since most non-Catholics have false beliefs about the Trinity, God’s immutability, simplicity, etc.¹¹ Dr. William Lane Craig is a very intellectual, devout, scholar with multiple degrees, published books, and academic articles, but misunderstands who Jesus Christ is. This is because of an underlying problem when someone does not function within Church authority - they themselves become the determining factor on orthodoxy.

Craig is aware of the Third Council of Constantinople and openly rejects it, claiming it conflicts with Scripture, but really putting forth a philosophical argument regarding it.¹² The goal of this article is not to show why these are heretical beliefs, but to show that even when a very intelligent and faithful person does not submit to any Church authority, there is not much to prevent them from falling into error. This is not some definitive argument, but it points to the problem with authority deriving from personal interpretation (i.e. the consequence of sola Scriptura). It is hard to believe the average person who reads the Bible is better equipped than Craig to understand its contents. The epistemology of Sola Scriptura is unreliable in producing orthodox Christian beliefs about the Trinity, God’s attributes, and Jesus Christ.

This brings up a certain point that God can lead those who believe in Him and love him to come to the correct understanding of Scripture. Although this is true (hypothetically), there is nothing Scriptural about it. God does not promise that the Bible alone will solve all doctrinal disputes or even allow one to come to a correct understanding on the basic aspects of the faith. On the contrary, not only are there disputes on whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation (something that seems necessary to have a proper understanding of) but the Bible refers to a Church authority to settle matters.¹³ It’s worth noting that other than what is found in the Catholic Church, there are only hypothetical situations where the Church could be one. God can communicate himself in whatever way he so chooses, but in reality he revealed his Word in both oral and written tradition, ending with the death of the last Apostle. Even if we only take written tradition, there are problems of authority. There is not a reasonable way for someone to know what books are inspired by God himself outside of an authority. “If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement.”¹⁴ To believe this would entail misunderstanding the history of Christianity, and discounting legitimate concerns. As Akin points out in his article: “sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills.”¹⁵

Sola Scriptura is made up.

Within Scripture, there is no indication of what books are or are not inspired, therefore God must reveal to man what books are inspired by him. This revelation can be done in whatever way God sees fit, but God has to communicate what books are inspired by him in order for Christians to know and believe they are. Due to the fact that God does not reveal himself to each and every individual, one must accept an infallible source of the canon to be the result of fallible Christians deciding amongst themselves what books are and aren’t to be regarded as divinely inspired. This is a dangerous game, since revering a book as inspired by God when it is not is very dangerous, and to be missing out on books that the Lord has inspired is also harmful. As we read in Revelation 22:18-19, “I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

To claim that an infallible canon can be determined from a non-infallible promulgation would violate the principle of proportionate causation.¹⁶ This presents another philosophical argument against Sola Scriptura¹⁷ other than the simple pointing out that it is a circular argument. None of this addresses previous concerns regarding how the Church functioned without the Bible for hundreds of years.

Faith is more than apologetics

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers,” (Acts 2:42). God is one, and therefore the Body of Christ is one. There is unity among Christians in what is believed, the liturgy, and through the very structure of the Church. The common belief is to the Apostles’ teaching and the liturgy is found in the Eucharist and prayers. The Catechism notes: “The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities. Only faith can recognize that the Church possesses these properties from her divine source.”¹⁸

In conclusion, it is unreasonable to assert that there is authority within the Scriptures that is in no way enforced by anything else. If the authority resides in individual people, then there is conflicting authority, and therefore it cannot be from God. If there is no authority, then not only is every Christian in the wind, as it were, concerning what to believe, but there also cannot be a canon because there must be an infallible promulgator if there is an infallible canon, per principle of proportionate causation. All other positions are either hypothetical or untenable for epistemological as well as theological reasons. This leaves the only real option: the Catholic Church. The Church that was established both in Scripture and in history, but most importantly by Jesus Christ. The Church with the authority (only insofar as it is given by God) to forgive sins, to bind and loose on matters of faith and morals, to dispense the sacraments, and to be a sacrament of salvation to the entire world.

“You can know where I stand, what I believe because I am a practicing Catholic, but I can’t know what you [a Protestant] believe unless I ask you.”¹⁹

1. See Nicene Creed.

2. Just wait until the marks of the Church article drops…

3. “The Pillar and Foundation of Truth,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life, no. 352, (1 April 2025).

4. This is not meant to be a definitive proof, since a text could say “anyone who reads this has read it,” and the text itself does enforce that truth in virtue of itself, whether anyone reads it or no one reads it. However, in cases of faith and morals, there is no parallel case where a text can produce the result of it (i.e. the dress code being in the handbook does not prevent violations - the authority is necessary to correct these).

5. Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 240.

6. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura.

7. Jimmy Akin, “The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura,” at EWTN, www.ewtn.com.

8. Isolation either by not reading in context or isolation by not reading with the Church and her Saints.

9. Just seent this too 💀

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/william-lane-craig-is-an-atheist

10. One of his YouTube channels has over 150,000 subscribers, over 35 million views, with some debates that are not on his channel, such as his debate with Christopher Hitchens, having nearly 9 million views.

11. Although alarm bells should sound in the mind of a Christian reading the summary of his theory of the Trinity: “A Social Trinitarian model is then presented, according to which God is a soul endowed with three sets of cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood.” See William Lane Craig, “A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” at Reasonable Faith, www.reasonablefaith.org.

12. William Lane Craig, “#75 Monothelitism,” at Reasonable Faith, www.reasonablefaith.org. He claims “we bring even the statements of Ecumenical Councils before the bar of Scripture,” but his argument is that “it seems to me almost obvious that the will is a faculty of a person,” meaning one person cannot have two wills, since that would make someone two persons (under his view that a will is from a person and not a nature) - he ultimately claims the view presented at the Council to be Nestorian. This philosophical stance is also why the logical conclusion of his Social Trinitarian account leads to believing there are three separate gods, since one person can will something the other decided not to do.

13. For situations where it is specifically Jesus himself giving people authority, see Mt 18:15-20; Lk 9:1-2; Mt 10:1; Mk 6:7-11; Jn 20:23, Mt 16:18, and Mt 28:18-20.

14. Akin, “The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura.”

15. Akin, “The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura.”

16. “Whatever is in some effect must in some way or other be in the cause, even if not always in the same way. For a cause cannot give what it does not have to give.” See Ed Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God, (San Francisco, CA: 2017).

17. See Timothy Gordon, “DEBATE: Does Inerrant Scripture Need an Infallible Tradition? (Gordon vs. Christie),” YouTube video from The Counsel of Trent, posted by The Counsel of Trent on 18 October 2023), at www.youtube.com.

18. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 811-812.

19. Flannery O’Connor, Letter to Dr. T.R. Spivey, (July 1959).