Sola Scriptura: The Real Divide Between Evangelical and Eastern Orthodox
By Joel Settecase*
What happens when you let go of Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith and practice? You don’t end up with unity. You end up with confusion, contradiction, and yes—aerial toll houses.
That was on full display during my recent debate with an Eastern Orthodox apologist who goes by "Schoolboy." He came to challenge the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and what followed was a whirlwind of circular reasoning, appeals to tradition, and the strangest attempt I’ve seen to defend aerial toll houses using 1 Thessalonians 4:17.
Let’s walk through what actually matters here: what is our ultimate standard for truth? What is the Christian's infallible rule of faith? And how do we know what God has actually said?
What Is the Difference Between Evangelical and Orthodox Christians?
Schoolboy kicked things off by asking whether my Reformed worldview is consistent with 2,000 years of church history.
That question assumes something it never proves—that church history is a higher authority than Scripture. I said it then, and I’ll say it again: the church is not the source of Scripture. Scripture is the source of the church.
The church is all the people ever saved by Jesus Christ. Yes, it had structure. Yes, there were bishops (which simply means elders or overseers). But none of that implies that councils or hierarchical systems are infallible.
He asked who led the early congregations. I said: elders. He said: bishops. We both agreed—but then he turned to a quote from Irenaeus to argue that we shouldn’t do anything apart from the bishop. The problem is, Irenaeus, like any church father, is not infallible. He must be tested against Scripture.
What Makes Evangelical Christians Different?
Another tactic was to appeal to the fact that early Christians didn’t have Bibles in their homes. True. But irrelevant.
The authority of Scripture does not depend on private ownership. Scripture was authoritative the moment it was written. The New Testament canon wasn’t invented by the church. It was recognized by the church.
As I explained, the canon was closed by the end of the first century. Yes, formal recognitions came later, but that doesn’t make those councils the source of Scripture. They’re the response. Like a judge recognizing a birth certificate. He didn’t create the baby.
Sola Scriptura: The Dividing Line Between Eastern Orthodoxy and Biblical Christianity
I posed the foundational question: What is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for God’s people?
He answered: the Holy Spirit.
Okay. But how does the Holy Spirit speak infallibly? He said, through councils and bishops. So I asked: where does Scripture teach that?
He went to 1 Timothy 4:14, referencing the laying on of hands. But that says nothing about ecumenical councils being infallible. He appealed to Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where the apostles agreed on doctrine. But that’s descriptive of a unique, apostolic event—not prescriptive for the perpetual infallibility of all future councils.
He even admitted that the canon was closed only by the Fifth or Sixth Ecumenical Council. But again—how do you prove the authority of that council without appealing to the very thing being debated?
Orthodox vs. Protestant: The Epistemological Divide
This is where Eastern Orthodoxy runs into a wall: it uses the church to prove the church. It uses the authority of councils to validate the authority of councils. That’s epistemological circularity.
By contrast, Sola Scriptura doesn’t say that Scripture proves Scripture arbitrarily. It says that Scripture is self-attesting, the revelation of God Himself, and bears His authority. That’s not a vicious circle—that’s revelatory necessity.
When God speaks, His Word doesn’t need validation by another authority. It is the standard.
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." —2 Timothy 3:16
Apostolic Succession Isn’t the Gospel
At one point, Schoolboy appealed to apostolic succession. "Who sent you?" he asked. My answer: Campus Crusade for Christ. And before that? The Holy Spirit.
That didn’t satisfy him.
He appealed to Romans 10:15: "How can they preach unless they are sent?" But let’s back up two verses: Romans 10:9 says, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
That’s the context he left out. If a person confesses the true gospel and believes it, he is saved. Apostolic succession is not the gospel. Trust in your church structure won’t save you. Trust in Christ will. So it’s the authenticity of a minister’s biblical message that gives it validity—not the supposed unbroken chain of succession.
Why Orthodoxy Is Wrong About Tradition
Then came the part that still baffles me.
I asked him to show me where aerial toll houses are found in Scripture. He went to 1 Thessalonians 4:17, which talks about believers being caught up in the air to meet the Lord. From that, he deduced the existence of postmortem judgment tollbooths guarded by demons.
That is not exegesis. That is eisegesis. And when I asked him to show me the concept—not just the words—he accused me of committing a "verbatim fallacy."
What he really meant is that his tradition can teach things not found in Scripture, and that’s okay because his church said so. That is exactly why we don’t entrust our souls to councils. Traditions can lie. The Word of God never does.
The Authority of Scripture Over the Church
Yes, the church is the body of Christ. Absolutely. But the Eastern Orthodox want to take that metaphor and press it beyond what Scripture allows.
Schoolboy said the church must reflect our Christology, and since Christ doesn’t change, the church can’t either. Sounds pious. But Scripture teaches that churches can and do fall into error.
Revelation 2–3: Jesus rebukes and threatens to remove churches who stray.
Galatians 1: Even if we or an angel preach another gospel, let him be accursed.
The church is the body of Christ, yes—but the church is also full of fallible people. We are not infallible. Our elders are not infallible. Our councils are not infallible. Only God’s Word is.
The Real Divide: Who Speaks for God?
Every error Schoolboy presented came back to this one question: Who speaks for God?
Is it councils? Is it bishops? Is it unwritten tradition? Or is it the written Word of God?
When Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, He didn’t appeal to oral tradition. He didn’t appeal to rabbinic councils. He said, "It is written."
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." —Matthew 4:4
The Word of God is clear. It is sufficient. And it is the final authority.
Sola Scriptura: Still the Foundation of Biblical Christianity
The Eastern Orthodox claim to preserve the ancient faith. But when they elevate tradition above Scripture, they follow the error of the Pharisees, not the apostles.
"You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down." —Mark 7:13
Church history is valuable. Councils are useful. Bishops have a role. But none of those things are infallible. Only Scripture is.
Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean Scripture in isolation. It means Scripture as the only infallible authority. Everything else—including church history—must be tested against it.
The Protestant Reformation wasn’t about novelty. It was about returning to the standard: the Word of God.
*This article was written by ChatGPT based on a transcript from my debate, which I pored over. I may have let something slip through that I don’t agree with. To any extent that AI made historical, biblical or theological mistakes, I disavow those (and please let me know if you find them).
Watch the Full Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF5DKrDqCI8
Invite Joel to Speak: Want to equip your church to stand firm and think clearly in a hostile world? Bring Joel in for a Defend Your Faith Weekend. Learn more and book today at thethink.institute/forchurches.