Sola scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy
The Catholic case against sola scripture may be summarized by
saying that sola scripture is unhistorical, unbiblical and
unworkable.
by Patrick Madrid
Let's say I'm an Evangelical. When I find out you're Catholic, I'm
going to hammer you with Bible verses that I believe demonstrate
that the Catholic Church's teachings on issues such as purgatory,
Mary, the papacy, and the Eucharist are unbiblical. "The Bible
alone provides the totality of God's revealed truth that's
necessary for the Church to have. Forget about all those man-made
Catholic traditions (traditions which, by the way, are condemned
by Christ in Matthew 15:3-9 end Mark 7:6-8). Just go by the Bible
alone," I'll argue.
Let's say you're hip to this argument. You know that the
Protestant principle of the Bible alone-<sola scriptura>, as the
Reformers called it-is untrue. But you don't know how to
demonstrate that <sola scriptura> is not what Christ taught, it's
not what the apostles and Church Fathers taught and, most
ironically, it's not what the Bible itself teaches.
Catholics need to realize just how untenable <sola scriptura> is
and simply ask that it be proven from the Bible. Instead of
allowing himself to be put on the defensive when purgatory, the
Real Presence, or some other Catholic doctrine1 is challenged by a
demand that <it> be proven from Scripture, the Catholic should
ask, "Where does the Bible teach <sola scriptura>?"
The Catholic case against <sola scriptura> may be summarized by
saying that <sola scriptura> is unhistorical, unbiblical and
unworkable. This article will examine each of these points,
without claiming to offer an exhaustive historical and biblical
critique of the doctrine (there are a number of books and tape
sets which do that). Nevertheless, I hope the essential elements
of the Catholic case will be clear.
SOLA SCPIPTURA IS UNHISTORICAL
First, let's consider <sola scriptura> from the vantage point of
history. If the notion of the absolute sufficiency of Scripture2
were indeed part of "the faith that was once for all handed on to
the saints" (Jude 3), we would expect to find it everywhere taught
and practiced in the early Church. We would expect to see the
ancient Christian liturgical life dominated and shaped by the rule
of <sola scriptura>. But we don't see anything of the sort. The
fact is, the writings of the Church Fathers and the councils, both
regional and ecumenical, reveal that <sola scriptura> was
completely alien to the thought and life of the early Church. Mind
you, the early Church placed an exceedingly great emphasis on the
importance and authority of Scripture to guide and govern the life
of the Church, and Scripture was employed constantly by the
Fathers in their doctrinal treatises and pastoral directives. But
Scripture was never regarded (or used) by the Church Fathers as
something that stands alone, self-sufficient and entirely
independent of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
Sometimes Protestant apologists try to bolster their case for
<sola scriptura>3 by using highly selective quotes from Church
Fathers such as Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Augustine, and Basil of Caesarea. These quotes, isolated from the
rest of what the Father in question wrote about church authority,
Tradition and Scripture, can give the appearance that these
Fathers were hard-core Evangelicals who promoted an unvarnished
<sola scriptura> principle that would have done John Calvin proud.
But this is merely a chimera. In order for the selective "pro-
<sola scriptura>" quotes from the Fathers to be of value to a
Protestant apologist, his audience must have little or no
firsthand knowledge of what these Fathers wrote. By considering
the patristic evidence on the subject of scriptural authority in
context, a very different picture emerges. A few examples will
suffice to demonstrate what I mean.
Basil of Caesarea provides Evangelical polemicists with what they
think is a "smoking gun" quote upholding <sola scriptura>:
"Therefore, let God inspired Scripture decide between us; and on
whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God,
in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth" (<Epistle ad
Eustathius>). This, they think, means that Basil would have been
comfortable with the Calvinist notion that "All things in
Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto
all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed,
and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened
in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned,
but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain
unto a sufficient understanding of them" (<The Westminister
Confession> 7).
Yet if Basil's quote is to be of any use to the Protestant
apologist, the rest of Basil's writings must be shown to be
consistent and compatible with <sola scriptura>. But watch what
happens to Basil's alleged <sola scriptura> position when we look
at other statements of his:
"Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or
enjoined which are preserved in the Church, some we possess
derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a
mystery by the apostles by the tradition of the apostles; and both
of these in relation to true religion have the same force" (<On
the Holy Spirit>, 27).
"In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form with the
Spirit' has no written authority, we maintain that if there is not
another instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be
received [as authoritative]. But if the great number of our
mysteries are admitted into our constitution without [the] written
authority [of Scripture], then, in company with many others, let
us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide by the
unwritten traditions. 'I praise you,' it is said [by Paul in l
Cor. 11:1] that you remember me in all things and keep the
traditions just as I handed them on to you,' and Hold fast to the
traditions that you were taught whether by an oral statement or by
a letter of ours' [2 Thess. 2:15]. One of these traditions is the
practice which is now before us [under consideration], which they
who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches,
delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom
advances pace by pace with time" (<On the Holy Spirit>, 71).
Such talk hardly fits with the principle that Scripture is
formally sufficient for all matters of Christian doctrine. This
type of appeal to a body of unwritten apostolic Tradition within
the Church as being authoritative is frequent in Basil's writings.
Protestant apologists are also fond of quoting two particular
passages from Athanasius: "The holy and inspired Scriptures are
sufficient of themselves for the preaching of the truth" (<Contra
Gentiles> 1:1). And: "These books [of canonical Scripture] are the
fountains of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied
with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the school of
piety preaches the Gospel. Let no man add to these or take away
from them" (39th <Festal Letter>). But in neither place is
Athanasius teaching <sola scriptura>.
First, in the case of the <Festal Letter>, he was instructing his
churches as to what could and could not be read at Church as
"Scripture." The context of the epistle makes it clear that he was
laying down a liturgical directive for his flock.
Second, as in the case of Basil and the other Fathers Protestants
attempt to press into service, Athanasius' writings show no signs
of <sola scriptura>, but rather of his staunchly orthodox
Catholicism. Athanasius, for example, wrote: "The confession
arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself
for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security
and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church" (<Ad Afros> 1).
And: "[T]he very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic
Church from the beginning was preached by the apostles and
preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if
anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be
celled a Christian" (<Ad Serapion> 1:28).
And consider this quote from Cyril of Jerusalem's <Catechetical
Lectures>, a favorite of the <nouveau> Protestant apologists: "In
regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not the
least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be
led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who
tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you
receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I
announce. The salvation which we believe is not proved from clever
reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures" (4:17).
How should we understand this? Catholic patristic scholars would
point out that such language as Cyril uses here is consistent with
his and the other Fathers' high view of Scripture's authority and
with what is sometimes called its material sufficiency (more on
that shortly). This language, while perhaps more rigorously
biblical than some modern Catholics are used to, nonetheless
conveys an accurate sense of Catholic teaching on the importance
of Scripture. Even taken at face value, Cyril's admonition poses
no problem for the Catholic. But it does, ironically, for the
Protestant.
The proponent of <sola scriptura> is faced with a dilemma when he
attempts to use Cyril's quote. Option One: If Cyril was in fact
teaching <sola scriptura>, Protestants have a big problem. Cyril's
<Catechetical Lectures> are filled with his forceful teachings on
the infallible teaching office of the Catholic Church (18:23), the
Mass as a sacrifice (23:6-8), the concept of purgatory and the
efficacy of expiatory prayers for the dead (23:10), the Real
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (19:7; 21:3; 22:1-9), the
theology of sacraments (1:3), the intercession of the saints
(23:9), holy orders (23:2), the importance of frequent Communion
(23:23), baptismal regeneration (1:1-3; 3:10-12; 21:3-4), indeed a
staggering array of specifically "Catholic" doctrines.
These are the same Catholic doctrines that Protestants claim are
not found in Scripture. So, if Cyril really held to the notion of
<sola scriptura>, he certainly believed he had found those
Catholic doctrines in Scripture. One would then have to posit that
Cyril was badly mistaken in his exegesis of Scripture, but this
tack, of course, leads nowhere for Protestants, for it would of
necessity impugn Cyril's exegetical credibility as well as his
claim to find <sola scriptura> in Scripture.
Option Two: Cyril did not teach <sola scriptura>; the Protestant
understanding of this passage is incorrect. That means an attempt
to hijack this quote to support <sola scriptura> is futile (if not
dishonest), since it would require a hopelessly incorrect
understanding of Cyril's method of systematic theology, the
doctrinal schema he sets forth in <Catechetical Lectures>, and his
view of the authority of Scripture. Obviously, neither of these
options is palatable to the Protestant apologist.
Were there time and space to cycle through each of the patristic
quotes proffered by Protestants arguing for <sola scriptura>, we
could demonstrate in each case that the Fathers are being quoted
out of context and without regard to the rest of their statements
on the authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. It
will suffice for now, though, to remind Catholics that the Fathers
did not teach <sola scriptura>, and no amount of clever "cut-and-
paste" work by defenders of <sola scriptura> can demonstrate
otherwise.
<SOLA SCRIPTURA> IS UNBIBLICAL
Consider the Old Testament. The principle of <sola scriptura> is
utterly alien to the way in which God dealt with his people before
Christ. Besides the fact that no Scripture of any sort was
available before Moses' time [apart from occasional, terrifying
incidents of direct revelation <en masse>, commands were mediated
to his people through prophets and patriarchs). No Israelite was
free to practice private interpretation of the Law, deciding for
himself how he believed the text should be interpreted. Imagine
someone telling Moses, "Look, I read Genesis 17 differently. I
think God was speaking about circumcision here figuratively. He
wasn't literally telling Abraham to take a knife and start cutting
things." The Old Testament contains no hint of <sola scriptura>.
The New Testament is the same. Not only does Christ institute a
teaching Church (Matt. 28:19-20), endowed with his own authority
(Luke 10:16; Matt. 16:18, 18:18), but we nowhere see the notion of
"Scripture alone" in the teachings of any of the apostles or any
of their successors. In fact, we even see examples of a preference
for imparting teachings orally and not in writing: "Though I have
much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I
hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that
our joy may be complete" (2 John 12; c.f., 3 John 13).
The fatal flaw of <sola scriptura> then is that it is itself not
taught in Scripture. The <Westminster Catechism> says: "The whole
counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory,
man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced
from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added,
whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men"
(6). If this statement is true, then the doctrine of <sola
scriptura> must itself be "expressly set down in Scripture, or ...
deduced from Scripture."
And that's the rub. By asserting <sola scriptura>, Protestants are
making the concomitant assertion that all divine revelation
necessary for the Church to possess comes down to us in Scripture
alone. The Anglican Reformers put it this way: "The Holy Scripture
containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that <whatsoever
is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby>, is not to be
required of any man that it should be believed as an article of
the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation"
(<The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion>, 6).
More specifically, as the <Westminister Confession> explains, to
be divinely revealed, a doctrine must be explicitly expressed or
logically implied in Scripture. And that leads us to the question
of formal and material sufficiency.
Many eminent Catholic theologians and doctors down through the
centuries, including most of the Church Fathers, have taught that
Scripture is materially sufficient4 (i.e., it contains all the
material or "stuff" of divine revelation, either in explicit or
implicit form).5 The problem is that Evangelical Protestants who
venture into patristic literature in pursuit of ammunition for
their position, come away with a faulty understanding of what the
Fathers meant. Newman observed this problem in a letter to an
Anglican friend: "You have made a collection of passages from the
Fathers, as witnesses in behalf of your doctrines that the whole
Christian Faith is contained in Scripture, as if, in your sense of
my words, Catholics contradicted you here. "6
We must make a distinction here in order to understand the
critical difference between the material sufficiency of Scripture
taught by the Fathers and the Reformers' much narrower notion of
formal sufficiency. At certain levels, the Catholic position
intersects with the Protestant formula of <sola scriptura>. But
the fundamental difference is this: The Catholic Church holds that
in order for the meaning of Sacred Scripture to be properly
understood, the Church must have recourse to its living Tradition-
i.e., the infallible interpretation of the apostolic <depositum
fidei> (c.f., <Dei verbum>, no. 10). And this interpretation is
guaranteed by an infallible Magisterium.
The Reformation creeds, while paying an ostensible limited respect
to Tradition, Church councils and the Fathers, nonetheless refuse
to accord them infallibility. Protestants claim that Scripture is
sufficient <in se> and, ultimately, does not require an infallible
Tradition or Magisterium in order to be authentically interpreted.
In contrast, the Catholic model for authority is tripartite-
Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium are distinct yet mutually
interdependent (<Dei Verbum>, nos. 9-10). <Scriptura, Traditio>
and <Magisterium> may be summarized in this way: <Scriptura> is
the object of the Church's interpretation; <Traditio> is the
Church's lived interpretation of Scripture; and <Magisterium> is
the organ of the Church that does the interpreting.
But the Protestant understanding of scriptural sufficiency pushes
beyond mere material sufficiency into the province of formal
sufficiency. Formal sufficiency means that all revelation
necessary for the Church to possess is presented formally in the
pages of Scripture, with nothing else needed-no Tradition or
Magisterium. This nuance-and make no mistake- it's a very
important nuance, is where the failure of <sola scriptura> occurs.
Another problem for <sola scriptura> is the canon of the New
Testament. There's no "inspired table of contents" in Scripture
that tells us which books belong and which ones don't. That
information comes to us from outside Scripture. Our knowledge of
which books comprise the canon of the New Testament must be
infallible; if not, there's no way to know for sure if the books
we regard as inspired really are inspired. It must be binding;
otherwise folks would be free to have their own customized canon
containing those books they take a fancy to and lacking the ones
they don't. And it must be part of divine revelation; if it's not
it's merely a tradition of men, and if that were so, Protestants
would be forced into the intolerable position of championing a
canon of purely human origin.
These facts don't square with the classic Protestant creeds, for
example the <Westminster Confession>, which asserts that, "The
authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed
and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church,
but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and
therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. We
may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high
and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture ... yet,
notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward
work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in
our hearts." This is pure Mormonism-the old "I know it's inspired
because I feel in my heart that it's inspired" line that Mormon
missionaries use. As a proof for the inspiration of Scripture,
this bromide is useless.
<Sola scriptura> becomes "canon" fodder as soon as the Catholic
asks the Protestant to explain how the books of the Bible got into
the Bible. Under the <sola scriptura> rubric, Scripture exists in
an absolute epistemological vacuum, since it and the veracity of
its contents "dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or
church." If that's true, how then can anyone know with certitude
what belongs in Scripture in the first place? The answer is, you
can't. Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the Magisterium,
endowed with Christ's own teaching authority (c.f., Matt. 16:18-
19, 18:18; Luke 10:16} guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26;
16:13), and the living apostolic Tradition of the Church (1 Cor.
11:1; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Timothy 2:2), there is no way to know for
certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not. As soon
as Protestants begin to appeal to the canons drawn up by this or
that Father, or this or that council, they immediately concede
defeat, since they are forced to appeal to the very "testimony of
man and Church" that they claim to not need.
It's important here to say a few words about some of the
scriptural arguments raised by Protestants in defense of <sola
scriptura>. The verse most often raised is 2 Timothy 3:1 6- 17,
yet this passage is a minefield of difficulties for <sola
scriptura>. Here Paul tells his young episcopal protege, Timothy,
that "All scripture is inspired by God (Greek: <theopneustos> =
"God breathed") and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for
correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of
God may be competent, equipped for every good work." The
conclusion drawn is that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches that the Bible
is sufficient in all matters of Christian doctrine and practice
because it will make the man of God equipped for "every good
work."
But notice the Greek, <pasa graphe theopneustos.> This means
"each" or "every" Scripture is inspired. This complicates matters
further for Protestants. For if Paul is pointing to sufficiency in
this passage, he's designated each book of Scripture as sufficient
in itself for the tasks he goes on to outline. But that of course
is not what Paul is saying.
In one of my public debates on <sola scriptura>,7 a Protestant
apologist attempted to make his case for the formal sufficiency of
Scripture by using an analogy of a bike shop. He argued that just
as the bike shop contains all the necessary accouterments for bike
riding and can fully equip a bike rider, so too Scripture is
sufficient to "fully equip" the man of God. Unfortunately for his
case, this analogy, although superficially plausible, is faulty.
The bike shop may provide all the necessary equipment, but the
customer must first know how to ride a bike to make use of that
equipment. This is analogous to the Christian knowing how to
correctly use Scripture. Bike shops can certainly equip their
customer with all the necessary paraphernalia, but don't teach him
how to ride.
My debate opponent tried to get around this by countering that 2
Timothy 3:17 says that the "man of God" is made fully equipped by
Scripture, so there is no question that he'll know how to use
Scripture correctly. But the problem with this argument is that it
provides no sure way to determine who is a "man of God" and who
isn't. Protestantism is so divided over central doctrinal issues
(e.g. infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the nature of
justification, salvation, divorce and remarriage, etc.), that this
"man of God" argument only begs the question. <All> Protestants
believe that they've embraced the "correct" interpretation of
Scripture, but doing so includes the implicit assertion that all
the other denominations don't have the correct interpretation on
all things. If they did, why the need for denominations? The
answer to the Protestant claims of formal sufficiency in this
passage is that Paul is not trying to establish Scripture as the
sole, sufficient thing that renders the man of God fit for these
tasks. Rather, he is reminding Timothy of several things that,
combined with God's grace and Timothy's faithful diligence, will
make him so equipped.
There's also the lexical argument based on the Greek of 2 Timothy
which argues that because Scripture will make the man of God
"<artios>" (suitable) and "<exartizo>" (thoroughly furnished), it
therefore is sufficient. But this argument fails for several
reasons.
First, with regard to what Scripture says about itself, 2 Timothy
3:16-17 merely says that Scripture is <ophelimos>, which means
"useful" or "profitable." Paul's use of the Greek terms <artios>
("suitable" or "correct") and <exartismenos> ("having been
furnished") does not imply the sufficiency of Scripture, on purely
lexical grounds. Although some Greek scholars note that <artios>
and <exartizo> could mean sufficient, we must do our best to
understand their actual meaning based on the context of the
passage. A telling fact is that no major Bible translation, not
even those produced by the most ardent supporters of <sola
scriptura>, renders either <artios> or <exartismenos>
"sufficient." Furthermore, the "sufficiency" hermeneutic
Protestants use in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 fails when applied to similar
passages.
For example, in 2 Timothy 2:19-21, Paul exhorts Timothy to cleanse
himself from all that is not holy and virtuous, saying that doing
so will make him "ready for every good work" (v.21). The exact
same Greek phrase is used here as in 2 Timothy 3:16: <pan ergon
agathon> ("for every good work"). Under the "sufficiency"
hermeneutic used by Protestants to defend <sola scriptura> in 2
Timothy 3:16, Paul would here be made to say that one's personal
efforts to become purified from sin are "sufficient." But this is
an absurd conclusion.
We can see the same absurdity in the Protestant argument arise
when it's applied to James 1:4: "And let [your] perseverance be
perfect (<teleion>), so that you may be perfect (<teleioi>) and
complete (<holoklepoi>), lacking in nothing (<en medeni
leipomenoi>)." This passage uses far stronger language than that
found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and goes far beyond the mere
implication of sufficiency Protestants want to see in this verse,
by the explicit statement that perseverance will make you "perfect
and complete, lacking in nothing." If any verse in the Bible could
be used to argue for "sufficiency" James 1:4 would be it. Under
the hermeneutic employed by the proponents of <sola scriptura>, in
this passage James would be saying that all one needs is
perseverance (the context is perseverance in suffering and good
works!). This would mean that mere perseverance is sufficient, and
such things as faith, grace, prayer, repentance, even Scripture,
are unnecessary. Again, an absurd proposition, but that's what
this form of Protestant argumentation leads to, not only here in
James 1:4, but also in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Some Protestants wind up committing a lexical fallacy in their
attempt to ward off the obvious implication of James 1:4 and 2
Timothy 2:19-21. They claim that because the word <teleios> is
used in James 1, not <artios>, the two passages cannot not be
compared. But the fact is, the primary meaning of <teleios> is
"complete" or "perfect." It's a much more forceful word for
indicating perfection or completion than is <artios>, which
primarily means merely "suitable" or "fit."8 And if the
<artios/exartizo> argument proves anything, it proves too much. 2
Timothy 3:16-17 shows that <artios> and <exartizo> modify "the man
of God" (<ho tou theou anthropos>), not "Scripture" (<graphe>).
Scripture does not claim sufficiency for itself here. It says it
completes and makes fit the man of God. So, at best, this argument
proves only that Scripture makes the man of God sufficient.
The context of this epistle is Paul's general instructions to
Timothy on how to be a holy and pastorally effective bishop.
Besides Scripture, Paul appeals to oral tradition (as he does in
other epistles) as a source for apostolic doctrine "what you have
heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who
will be able to teach others also" (2:2; cf. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess.
2:15). He alludes to this oral teaching two verses earlier: "But
you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed,
because you know from whom you learned it" (3:14). In 2 Timothy
2:15 Paul advises Timothy to "rightly divide the word of truth."
Contrary to the common Protestant assumption, the phrase "word of
truth" is not restricted to Scripture alone, but includes oral
tradition as well. For example, in Ephesians 1:13 end Colossians
1:5 "the word of truth" refers specifically to Apostolic
Tradition, not Scripture.
There are many other scriptural arguments Protestants use, but in
the interest of space, we'll simply discuss a few briefly.
Matthew 4:1-11 : The passage where Jesus rebukes the devil with
the phrase "It is written," referring to Scripture. Protestants
see in this and other "It is written" passages a vindication of
<sola scriptura>. "See!" they say, "Jesus did not appeal to
Tradition or the Church or anything else, but to Scripture. That
means that Scripture is sufficient to settle all issues." But
that's not at all what this verse means. Notice first of all that
in this same Passage Jesus reminds the devil of the passage, "man
shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Not
all of God's words are contained in Scripture. Besides Christ who
is the Word of God (John 1:1,14), some of God's words come down to
us in oral fashion (c.f., Acts 20:27; Gal. 1:11-12, 15-16; 1
Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:2). Christ does not say nor does he imply a
"scripture alone" approach to truth in this passage. Rather, he
reminds us that we are to cling to and live by every word that he
speaks, not just the written words contained in Scripture. Notice
too the implicit warning here. The mere quoting of Scripture is
not enough to establish one's truth claims, since here we see the
devil himself (mis)quoting Scripture! That's why Peter warned
that, "In [Paul's epistles] there are some things hard to
understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own
destruction, just as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).
In the year 434, Vincent of Lerins reflected on this problem: "If
one should ask one of the heretics who gives you this advice, 'How
do you prove [your assertion]? What ground have you for saying
that I ought to cast away the universal and ancient faith of the
Catholic Church? He has the answer ready: 'For it is written.' And
forthwith he produces a thousand examples, a thousand authorities
from the Law, from the Psalms, from the apostles, from the
prophets, by means of which, interpreted on a new and wrong
principle, the unhappy soul may be precipitated from the height of
Catholic truth to the lowest abyss of heresy.... Do heretics
appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance. For you
may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture
... Whether among their own people or among strangers, in private
or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings or
in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of
their own which they do not endeavor to shelter under the words of
Scripture.... You will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a
single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from
the New Testament or the Old" (<Commonitoria> 25,26,25).
Acts 17:10-11: "Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the
Jews. These Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for
they received the word with all willingness and examined the
Scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so."
This passage is appealed to as evidence that it is more "noble" to
go by whet Scripture says, than by whet even apostles themselves
preach orally. But this is not so.
First, remember that these Jews were called noble mainly because
they did not riot upon hearing Paul's claims for Christ's
divinity, as did the Jews of Thessalonica (cf., Acts 17:1 -8). The
Berean Jews were docile and willing to check to see if Paul's
claims squared with Scripture. After all, he was preaching the
Gospel to the Jews, and urging them to check these things out for
themselves in what had by then become the "Old" Testament (cf.
17:2-3). Using Scripture was certainly appropriate when dealing
with Jews, who revered and believed in Scripture, though it was
futile to use when preaching to Gentiles, who had no appreciation
for Scripture. That's why we don't see Paul or the other apostles
typically using Scripture in their apostolic work among the
Gentiles, and sometimes we see an appeal to pagan writings to make
his point, when necessary! (cf. Acts 17:22-32).
Besides, the apostles were charged with teaching the Gospel to all
creatures (Matt. 28:19-20), and this magisterial office included
the task of interpreting Scripture. When the apostles taught,
whether in writing or orally, God was teaching through them (Luke
10:16; 1 Thess. 2:13).
Revelation 22:18-19: "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic
words in this book; if anyone adds to them, God will add to him
the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from
the words in this book, God will take away his share in the tree
of life and in the holy City described in this book." Protestants
argue that Catholic Tradition is "adding" to Scripture. But this
passage refers to Revelation itself, not Scripture in general.
After all, Scripture, compiled definitively as a single "book,"
would not be known by the Church until the councils of Hippo (393)
and Carthage (397, 419).
There's also a problem for this argument in light of Deuteronomy
4:2, 12:32, where the Israelites are warned to neither add nor
subtract anything from the teachings contained therein. The same
sort of warning in Revelation 22 is found in Deuteronomy, yet any
Protestant will admit that it doesn't prohibit the adding of all
the books of the Old Testament that follow Deuteronomy and all of
the New Testament to the canon of Scripture.
<SOLA SCRIPTURA> IS UNWORKABLE
We've reached that point where the "rubber" of <sola scriptura>
meets the "road" of everyday life. The final question that should
be asked the Protestant is, "Can you show where in history <sola
scriptura> has worked?" In other words, where, throughout
Protestantism's relatively brief life-span, can we find examples
(just one will do) of <sola scriptura> actually working-
functioning in such a way that it brings about doctrinal certitude
and unity of doctrine among Christians? The answer is "nowhere."
As a rule of faith that, without recourse to Sacred Tradition and
an infallible Magisterium, promises doctrinal certitude and a
unity of faith, <sola scriptura> fails miserably. The best
evidence of this is Protestantism itself. There are today,
according to one recent study, over 22,000 distinct Protestant
denominations in the world, each of which claims to go by the
"Bible alone," yet no two of them agree on what exactly the Bible
teaches.
The blueprint for the doctrinal chaos that is Protestantism is
laid out in the <Westminster Confession of Faith>: "The whole
counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory,
man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced
from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added,
whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men...
(6)
"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor
alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be
known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly
propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that
not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the
ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them
.. (7)
"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the
Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about
the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold,
but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak
more clearly. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of
religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils,
opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private
spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest,
can tee no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture"
(<Westminster Confession of Faith> 9).
All of that sounds fine at first glance, but upon inspection, this
framework collapses. First, if "the whole counsel of God . . . is
either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary
consequence may be deduced from Scripture," then <sola scriptura>
must itself appear somewhere in Scripture, but it does not. And
thus, under the terms set forth in all the classical Protestant
creeds, it is a self-refuting proposition.
Second, if "those things which are necessary to be known,
believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded
and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the
learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means,
may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them," then we have
another problem. What are we to do with such things "necessary to
be known, believed, and observed for salvation" as the doctrine
that the Persons of the Trinity are homoousios, that in Christ
there are two wills, the Hypostatic Union, the cessation of divine
revelation upon the death of the last Apostle, the canon of
Scripture, whether or not infants should be baptized, and a whole
host of key issues that bear directly upon the core of the
Christian faith.
Scripture alone-Scripture forced to stand apart from the
infallible teaching magisterium that has been given Christ's own
authority to accurately interpret Scripture, and Sacred Tradition,
which is the Church's living interpretation of those written words
-is unstable and leads to the myriad of conflicting, erroneous,
and sometimes spiritually fatal "human traditions" (c.f. Matt.
15:3-9; Mark 7:6-7) that lead people away from Christ.
Scripture alone, as the tragic history of Protestantism has shown,
becomes the private play toy of any self-styled "exegete" who
wishes to interpret God's Word to suit his own views. The history
of Protestantism, laboring under <sola scriptura>, is an unending
kaleidoscope of fragmentation and splintering. It cannot provide
any sort of doctrinal certitude for the Christian, because it is
built on the shifting sand of mere human opinion - what the
individual pastor <thinks> Scripture means.
Even Martin Luther saw the inescapable principle of fragmentation
and disunity that lies at the heart of <sola scriptura>. In a
letter to Urlich Zwingli, he complained bitterly about the
doctrinal anarchy that was even then rampant among Protestants:
"If the world lasts, it will be necessary, on account of the
differing interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to
preserve the unity of faith, we should receive the [Catholic]
councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge."
Catholics should not flinch when confronted with alleged
"biblical" and "historical" arguments for <sola scriptura>. They
fall apart. Scripture and history are the two best apologetics
tools for effective evangelization in discussions with Protestants
about <sola scriptura>. I know firsthand the importance of
discussing <sola scriptura> with Protestants. Having engaged in a
number of live public debates with Protestant ministers on this
subject, I've seen Protestants completely flummoxed (some even
converted to Catholicism) when they see that <sola scriptura> is
utterly indefensible.
So go ahead and jerk their chain. <sola scriptura> is by far and
away the weakest link.
Patrick Madrid is the editor of the book, Surprised by Truth
(Basilica Press, 1994), and the author of the forthcoming book Any
Friend of God's Is a Friend of Mine, due out this spring. He lives
in San Diego with his wife Nancy and their eight children.
1 Scriptural evidence, whether explicit or implicit, can indeed be
adduced for these Catholic teachings, but those apologetics
discussions are not our focus here and must be left for other
articles.
2 In the distinct, formal sense that Protestants advocate,
overagainst the Catholic position of the "material sufficiency" of
Scripture, which will be discussed later in this article.
3 This is due, I believe, to the recent dramatic rise in
apologetics works against <sola scriptura> by Catholics.
4 For a discussion of the history of the material sufficiency
position among Catholic theologians, see George H. Tavard, <Holy
Writ or Holy Church: The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation>
(London: Burnes & Oates, 1959). A thorough discussion of the
meaning of formal and material sufficiency with regard to the
claims of the classical Protestant definitions of sola scripture
is found in Yves M. J. Congar, <Tradition and Traditions> (New
York: MacMillan, 1967), pp. 23-85, 156-168, and especially 376-
426. Protestants who object to the categories formal and material
with regard to Scriptural sufficiency would do well to read
Congar's treatment before they reject them as "improperly imposed"
by Catholic apologists.
5 So Thomas Aquinas: "Sacra Scriptura ad hoc divinitus est
ordinate ut per eam nobis veritas manifestetur necessaria ad
salutem" (<Quodl.> 7, 14).
6 John Henry Newman, <Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in
Catholic Teaching, Considered in a Letter Addressed to the Rev.
E.B. Pusey, D.D., on the Occasion of His Eirenicon of 1864,> Vol.
2, section 2, 2.
7 This two tape set, "Does the Bible Teach <sola scriptura>?" is
available for $15 post-paid from Basilica Press, P.O. Box 85152,
San Diego, CA 92186.
8 See Gerhard Delling's article on <teleios> in Kittel's
<Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,> Gerhard Friedrich,
ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), vol. 8, 67-78, where he
translates <teleios> as: "totality," "undivided," "complete," and
"perfect." Delling gives the meanings of <artios> as: "right,"
"faultless," "normal," "meeting demands," and "proper" [ibid.,
vol. l, 475-476). Of <exartizo> he says, "At 2 Tim. 3:17 [it]
means to bring to a suitable state for Christian moral action."
This article was taken from the Mar-Apr. 1996 issue of "Catholic
Dossier". Catholic Dossier is published bi-monthly for $24.95 a
year by Ignatius Press. For subscriptions: P.O. Box 1639,
Snohomish, WA 98291-1639, 1-800-651-1531.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
FTP: ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
Email address: sysop@ ewtn.com
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------
