Sola Scriptura

Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.

Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offensive. A typical argument sounds something like this:

Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:

Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.

The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.

To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then beginning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).

The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscovered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.

The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.

Scripture is not simply written Tradition.

Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scripture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.

But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,

Here we see that Scripture is not “the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated “interpretation” means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have “its origin in the will of man” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).

The word translated here “carried along” is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for healing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; “men spoke” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.

For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:

The phrase “inspired by God” is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: “All Scripture is God-breathed. . . “(2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.

In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.

The Bible contains all essential revelation.

It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:

John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:

We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institution such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.

The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.

To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:

At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.

There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:

Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the sufficiency or authority of the Word of God.

The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?

In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” they demand.

Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.

The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradition is also the Word of God.

The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradition and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.

Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).

Notes

The choice was one of putting one's faith in "Church" and putting one's faith in Christ.

You had said;

CynicalBear, Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. When you reject His Church, you reject Jesus Christ Himself.

To mimic your own style of reasoning and discourse in your above comment to CB, turning that same around in counter-point, I could ask you, Heart-Rest;

So are you saying that Roman Catholics have rejected Christ, for they have (long before you were born, so it's not your fault) erected an intricate structure of interlocking falsehood and shadings which in end result obscure and distort the truth of Christ, itself?

But that wouldn't be entirely fair. Yet for yourself to so casually mix and blur the identities of God Himself, on the one hand, to also on the other hand BE the Church (and by that you do mean the Roman Catholic one, the one which has an earthly & human "pope") isn't at all fair either.

That is what set me off against yourself having played games with CB's other statements, turning them this way and that, saying as much as If this-then that. The same treatment should be applied to your own statements and positions.

The Roman Catholic ecclesiastical community has long imported into the Gospel itself a variety of distortion, in the end having made many among their own ecclesia end up with some blend of often looking to Mary for salvation itself --- which salvation they must then also work for, somehow making themselves holy enough (through works) to be acceptable to God.

One may as well be a Mormon or perhaps better, a Muslim (they talk all nicey-nicey about how special *Mary* was, even as they say God created Christ within her) if it be by works that we are saved.

But go ahead, object and say that the RCC doesn't teach salvation by works ---it will fall on partially-deaf ears --- for I otherwise can see for myself that when the RCC is not teaching "grace" (having been forced to return to official endorsement of salvation by the Grace of God, through the bodily sacrifice of Jesus) due to the significant theological challenges and pressures arising from the Protestant Reformation, then "they" (the RCC) do also teach salvation by works, with that being inexorably mixed in with the teaching of the need and calling towards increasing sanctification being represented much as justification itself --- in overall end result rendering Christ's own sacrifice insufficient propitiation for our own sins, that must be added to in some manner, by our own efforts.

When the Gospel itself is not obscured by presenting salvation be of works which must be done (whatever the works are which the RCC would in any particular era proscribe) then Christ's own sacrifice is turned into a pill, a flat lozenge which only priests in communion with Rome are said have the ability to "confect" (into being the body of Christ, of which it is true, all must partake of).

It is no wonder that many, once they were able to read the Scriptures in their own native languages and thus understand what was written, reacted to what had evolved as being Rome's own (16th century) approach to the thanksgiving memorial remembrance with the rhetorical charge --- "blasphemy!".

It is simply not true, that to oppose the RCC in some way, is to oppose (thus reject) God Himself. The RCC is not God. Please stop broadcasting the confused (and confusing) message that He is.

Slogging through some of the backlogged comments; thanks for your patience!

[paladinan]
There are literally thousands of denominations which claim to be "sola Scriptura" adherents, and yet they come to contradictory conclusions... to the extent that, at least at some point, they all split away from other Christian groups, and divided the Body of Christ more and more painfully. How are you, personally, in a position to say that they are wrong, and you are right?

[metmom]
That has been refuted numerous times.

I've seen many responses. I've yet to see any refutations.

Nor does the existence of numerous denominations mean that they by default, think that everyone else is wrong.

In the general sense, you're absolutely right--in the sense that two groups who split from each other don't *necessarily* have to differ in doctrine (I think of the second Catholic/Orthodox split in 1054 A.D., which was almost purely political... and core doctrinal differences didn't come up until much later; see my previous comment for details.) But I didn't just "assume" that "different group = different belief"; I went and checked (and I gave examples, above). Here's a short list, again:

1) "Baptism is a regenerative Sacrament, and it's necessary for salvation." (believed by Anglicans/Episcopalians, many Lutherans, and assorted other sola-Scriptura adherents [hereafter "SSA's"]

2) "Baptism may be a meaningful "ordinance" and symbol, but it is not a Sacrament, not regenerative, and not required for salvation." (believed by most Evangelical SSA's)

1) "Worship on Sunday is the prescribed and God-honoring way to keep holy the Lord's Day." (most SSA's)

2) "Worship on Sunday (as opposed to Saturday, the "true Sabbath") is the Mark of the Beast (as described in Revelation), a violation of the 4th commandment, and damns those who not repent of it." (Seventh-Day Adventists)

1) "God is three Persons in one God--the Trinity." (most SSA's)

2) "God is one Person in one God, since anything else is mere polytheism with a pretty mask." (Unitarian Pentecostals, and other modalist SSA's)

1) "The Eucharist is the highest form of worship we can offer to God, since it entails Christ's Own offering of Himself." (many Anglicans/Episcopalians, some Lutherans)

2) "The Eucharist is an abomination and sheer idolatry." (many Evangelical SSA's, Assemblies of God, etc.)

...and the list goes on. Remember when you said, "Something can't be true and not true at the same time" (which is absolutely correct)? That's the problem, here... and all of the above are believed by non-Catholics who attribute their beliefs to sola Scriptura. (Go check their statements of faith on their websites, if you doubt.)

Differences in governance or focus and ministry outreach, does not automatically translate into doctrinal differences.

That's true. I hope you keep that in mind if you're ever tempted to attribute "division" to Catholicism merely because the Dominicans have a different charism and approach than the Franciscans, for example.

Nor does it mean that they are not saved. There are Pentecostals who practice the gifts and Baptists who don't. Big deal.

What of the Pentecostals who claim that you are wrong, and that those who don't manifest charismata (e.g. speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc.) are not yet saved? You and they can't both be right; either it's a matter of salvation/damnation, or it's "no big deal"--not both. Which is it, and how do you prove your case?

Nowhere in Scripture does God ever demand lockstep adherence to the same teachings of the Bible.

See my previous comment, re: "lockstep" this-or-that.

The fact that some come to different interpretations on some verses does not disqualify the concept that Scripture contains all we need to know to attain salvation and to grow and mature in Christ. It's not a problem with the Scripture, nor the doctrine.

DIFFERENT interpretations are not necessarily a problem. CONTRADICTORY interpretations, on grave matters, ARE a problem.

Scripture is inherently authoritative by virtue of the fact that it is the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God. It is all we need to grow in the knowledge of Him, as Scripture itself states.

Scripture itself does NOT say that it is "all we need"; those are your words, not those of the Bible (see our previous discussion on 2 Timothy); in fact, it says the opposite on many occasions (e.g. Acts 8:30-31: "So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And [the eunuch] said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?") In addition, you haven't yet shown me that you have the correct Bible (instead of a 66-book fragment).

Every criticism against sola Scriptura can be used against the CCC and the RCC magisterium.

No, it can't. But even if it could, this is a "tu quoque" fallacy... trying to excuse your own argument's flaws by pointing out alleged flaws in those of others. Pointing out your neighbor's leaky boat doesn't patch your own leaky boat.

Catholics do not all agree on every aspect of Catholicism,

The teaching authority of the Church does not rest with "Catholics" as individuals; it rests with the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope, and the bishops in union with him). There are always going to be Catholics who are confused or disobedient, just as there are Protestants who are confused or disobedient; that's not the point, since they're not the source of doctrine in teh first place. We don't find out Catholic teaching by doing a survey of Catholics (even writers/theologians); we find it out by asking the Magisterium itself. (Have you checked out a Catechism, yet?)

and yet they continue to claim they have a superior system by adding tradition and human leadership to the mix.

We didn't "add" anything; Protestantism threw out the baby (Sacred Tradition) with the bathwater (TRUE abuses).

If Scripture isn't adequate, being from the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infallible, eternal, God Himself, then nothing fallible, mortal, sinful, blinded man adds to it is going to improve it in any way.

You keep saying that--i.e. "If Scripture isn't adequate!". Who's saying that it isn't adequate? (I'm not!) I'm simply saying that it was never designed to work ALONE. Key word: ALONE. (We also need to have ALL of the Scriptures, and not simply the books and parts which early Protestants decided not to edit out.) Scripture is more than adequate for the purposes for which God gave it to us, just as water may be more than adequate to put out a specific fire; but it needs other things, as well (e.g. a fire hose, water pressure, people to man the hose, etc.). I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that... but you keep missing that idea and "skidding around" that idea on two wheels!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.