Joshua Charles on Sola Scriptura: Catholic vs Christian Debate
Joshua Charles recently launched a scathing attack on Sola Scriptura, leaving many feeling despondent about the ongoing Catholic vs Christian divide. At Old Time Preaching, we stand unashamedly for the sufficiency of God’s Word, a truth rooted in the practices of the early church. In this 2,000-word rebuttal, we dive deep into Charles’ arguments, which often echo claims from Rome, and demonstrate how Protestant theology, as defended by R.C. Sproul, upholds the authority of Scripture. The tension between Catholic and Protestant perspectives is not new, but Charles’ critique has reignited this debate with fresh vigor. We aim to provide clarity on this issue, showing that the Bible alone is sufficient for faith and practice, without the need for an infallible magisterium. Learn more in our Catholicism vs Christianity section. What’s your take on this debate? Comment below!
Table of Contact
- Unpacking Joshua Charles’ Attack on Sola Scriptura
- Misdefining Sola Scriptura and the Canon
- Sacred History and the Early Church
- R.C. Sproul and the Canon
- Rome Claims and Charles’ Assumptions
- The Sufficiency of Scripture
- The Irony of Charles’ Conversion
- Conclusion
- FAQs
Unpacking Joshua Charles’ Attack on Sola Scriptura
Joshua Charles’ attack on Sola Scriptura has stirred significant reactions among Protestant believers who hold fast to the authority of Scripture. In a recent YouTube video, he frames the doctrine as incoherent, a critique that aligns with long-standing arguments often heard in the Catholic vs Christian debate. Charles argues that without an authoritative church to define the canon, the Bible cannot stand as the sole rule of faith. However, this perspective fundamentally misunderstands the Protestant position. History reveals that the early church recognized the canon through God’s providence, not through an infallible magisterium as Rome claims. The process was not arbitrary but guided by clear criteria—apostolic authorship, consistency with other Scriptures, and widespread acceptance among early Christian communities. R.C. Sproul, a renowned Protestant theologian, consistently defended this truth, emphasizing that Sola Scriptura is not a modern invention but a principle deeply rooted in early Christian practices. Charles’ rejection of this doctrine ignores the historical reality, leaving many Protestant readers feeling disheartened. His arguments echo Catholic apologetics, which often prioritize church authority over Scripture, a position that has fueled centuries of debate between Catholic and Protestant traditions. Yet, the sufficiency of the Bible remains a cornerstone of Protestant theology, and we’ll explore this further by unpacking Charles’ misunderstandings and reaffirming the Bible’s ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. Do you agree with his critique of Scripture alone? Share your thoughts below!
Misdefining Sola Scriptura and the Canon
Joshua Charles claims that Sola Scriptura is incoherent because it lacks an inspired table of contents for the canon, a point frequently raised in Catholic vs Christian debates. This argument, however, misdefines the Protestant doctrine at its core. Sola Scriptura asserts that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for faith and practice, not that it must explicitly list its own books, as Charles demands. The early church recognized the canon through a historical process involving careful discernment—criteria like apostolicity, consistency with other inspired writings, and widespread acceptance among Christian communities played a key role. This process was not dependent on claims of an infallible magisterium, as Rome insists, but rather on the providential guidance of God through His people. Charles’ critique suggests that without an authoritative church to define the canon, the Bible cannot be trusted, but this misunderstands the nature of divine inspiration and preservation. The canon’s formation was a historical reality, not a theological necessity for an infallible human institution. Protestant theology holds that God Himself ensured the preservation of His Word, a truth evident in the early church’s practices. Charles’ argument, while compelling to some, fails to account for the historical evidence of how the canon was formed and recognized, and it overlooks the sufficiency of Scripture as the ultimate authority for Christian doctrine. What’s your view on the canon’s formation in light of Charles’ arguments? Comment below!
Sacred History and the Early Church
Charles further argues that Sola Scriptura is inconsistent with sacred history because figures like Abraham lacked a completed canon, a critique often echoed in Catholic vs Christian debates. This point, however, misunderstands the Protestant doctrine of Scripture alone. Sola Scriptura applies to the post-apostolic era, after God’s revelation was complete, not during the time of progressive revelation in the early church. During the patriarchal and prophetic periods, God spoke directly through chosen individuals—Abraham, Moses, and the prophets—revealing His will progressively. The early church operated under this framework of direct divine revelation, as seen in the lives of the apostles, who were inspired to write the New Testament Scriptures. R.C. Sproul often highlighted this historical context, noting that Scripture became the sole authority for the church once the canon was closed, a truth early Christians understood despite claims to the contrary from Rome. Charles’ “logistical issue” ignores the distinction between the time of revelation and the time of application, a critical oversight in his argument. The early church’s reliance on Scripture, even as it was being written, demonstrates that God’s Word was always the ultimate authority, not human tradition or an infallible magisterium. This historical reality undermines Charles’ position and reaffirms the Protestant commitment to Sola Scriptura as a doctrine grounded in the practices of the early church, even in the face of Catholic critiques. Does sacred history challenge Scripture alone for you, as Charles suggests? Share your thoughts below!
R.C. Sproul and the Canon
R.C. Sproul’s statement that the canon is a “fallible collection of infallible books” is often misused by Charles to attack Sola Scriptura. In the broader context of Catholic vs Christian debates, Charles distorts Sproul’s point, aligning with claims that an infallible magisterium is necessary to establish the canon’s authority. However, Protestant theology, as Sproul taught, doesn’t require an infallible canon in the sense of an infallible human declaration—just a providentially guided process, which the early church undertook with care. Sproul argued that the canon’s recognition was a historical event, not a theological necessity for an infallible church authority. The early church, through councils and widespread consensus, discerned the canon based on clear criteria: apostolic authorship, doctrinal consistency, and acceptance by the broader Christian community. Charles’ critique ignores this historical process, instead suggesting that without an infallible church, the canon cannot be trusted. Sproul’s confidence in historical evidence supports the early church’s reliance on Scripture as the ultimate authority, a position that aligns with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This understanding counters Charles’ arguments and provides a robust defense of Scripture’s sufficiency, showing that the Bible’s authority does not depend on human infallibility but on God’s providence. What do you think of Sproul’s view on the canon in this debate? Comment below!
Rome Claims and Charles’ Assumptions
Charles’ arguments heavily rely on claims from Rome, suggesting that the early church needed an infallible magisterium to function, a stance that fuels Catholic vs Christian debates. This assumption posits that the church must be infallible in all doctrines, a false dichotomy that Sproul often refuted in his writings. Protestant theology affirms God’s providence in the canon’s formation without endorsing Rome’s claims, which include unbiblical practices like Marian doctrines or the veneration of saints. Charles’ tone reflects a craving for human certainty, but Sola Scriptura trusts God’s Word as the ultimate authority over any human institution. The early church’s practices, as Sproul noted, align with Protestant principles—Scripture was the final arbiter of truth, not an infallible church authority. Rome’s claims often elevate tradition to the level of Scripture, a position that Charles seems to adopt, but this undermines the sufficiency of the Bible, which Protestant theology upholds. The historical evidence shows that early Christians relied on Scripture, not an infallible magisterium, to guide their faith and practice, a reality that Charles’ arguments fail to address. For a deeper dive into refuting Catholic claims, see our Roman Catholicism Refuted. Do you agree with Charles’ assumptions about Rome’s claims? Share your thoughts below!
The Sufficiency of Scripture
Sola Scriptura affirms the sufficiency of Scripture, a truth that Charles rejects in his critique, often leaving Protestant believers feeling disheartened. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul declares that Scripture equips believers for every good work—a total sufficiency that Protestant theology upholds, as Sproul often taught in his lectures and writings. Early Christians recognized this, distinguishing inspired texts from other writings without relying on Rome’s claims, a point Charles overlooks in his arguments within Catholic vs Christian debates. Rome often pits tradition against Scripture, elevating church teachings to the same level as the Bible, but Sola Scriptura, as Sproul explained, shows that God’s Word stands alone, living and active (Hebrews 4:12). The sufficiency of Scripture means that everything necessary for salvation, doctrine, and Christian living is found within its pages—no additional authority is required. Charles’ rejection of this truth fuels the divide between Catholic and Protestant perspectives, but the early church’s reliance on Scripture, not human tradition, supports Sola Scriptura as a foundational principle of Protestant faith. This doctrine has been a bedrock for centuries, guiding believers through challenges and controversies, and it continues to offer clarity and certainty in an age of competing claims about authority. Is Scripture sufficient for you in your faith journey? Comment below!
The Irony of Charles’ Conversion
Charles’ conversion to Catholicism mirrors Rome’s claims over Sola Scriptura, a shift that deepens the Catholic vs Christian divide and leaves many Protestant believers feeling despondent. His appeal to the early church as an infallible institution aligns with Rome’s perspective, not the Protestant principles that Sproul defended throughout his ministry. Sproul’s teachings emphasize the early church’s providential recognition of the canon, not a reliance on an infallible magisterium, which Rome claims to possess. Rome’s assertion of an infallible church authority, solidified at the Council of Trent in 1546, came much later than the early church’s practices, as noted in our Roman Catholicism Refuted. Charles’ journey reflects a rejection of Scripture’s sufficiency, opting instead for the certainty of an institutional church, a choice that many Protestant theologians, including Sproul, have critiqued as unbiblical. The early church’s practices, as Sproul taught, support Protestant theology—Scripture was the ultimate authority, not human tradition or church decrees. Charles’ conversion highlights the allure of Rome’s claims for those seeking certainty, but it also underscores the enduring strength of Sola Scriptura as a principle that has guided Protestant faith for centuries, offering a direct connection to God’s Word without the need for an intermediary. What’s your view on Charles’ conversion in light of these claims? Share below!
Conclusion
Charles’ attack on Sola Scriptura fails to undermine its biblical basis, despite leaving some Protestant believers feeling disheartened. Catholic vs Christian debates often fuel Rome’s claims, but the early church’s recognition of Scripture, as thinkers like Sproul affirm, shows God’s providence at work. Sola Scriptura stands as the sole infallible rule for faith and practice, not needing the claims of an infallible magisterium that Charles now embraces. The Bible’s authority does not depend on human institutions but on God Himself, who inspired and preserved His Word for His people. Trust the Bible’s sufficiency, as Psalm 119:105 declares it a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, guiding us through every season of life. The early church relied on Scripture, not human tradition, to navigate challenges and establish doctrine, a practice that Protestant theology continues to uphold today. For those seeking to explore this topic further, resources like Ligonier Ministries, founded by Sproul, offer valuable insights into the doctrine of Scripture alone and its implications for Christian living. Visit Ligonier Ministries for more. Does Scripture guide your faith, despite Charles’ claims? Share your thoughts below!
FAQs
What does Joshua Charles say about Sola Scriptura?
A: Charles claims Sola Scriptura is incoherent, echoing Rome’s claims in the Catholic vs Christian debate. He rejects Scripture’s sufficiency, a stance Protestant theology counters with early Christian practices.
How does the early church support Sola Scriptura?
A: The early church recognized the canon through providence, not Rome’s claims, as Charles suggests. Protestant theology, as Sproul noted, affirms Scripture’s authority in early Christian practices.
Tags
Joshua Charles
despondent
Catholic vs Christian
Sola Scriptura
early church
R.C. Sproul
Rome claims
Protestant
Published on: 08:25 PM EDT on Monday, May 19, 2025
Author: Tim, the Chief of the Nobodies, preaching at Old Time Preaching. Contact: tim@oldtimepreaching.com.
