Surpassing Sola Scriptura

Answering Protestants ^ | 31 March 2014 | Matthew Olson

[matthewrobertolson]

“[The Church] does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means.” – G. K. Chesterton

Sola Scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Under it, only doctrines that are found directly within the Bible or are drawn indirectly from it by simple reasoning are allowed. (See material vs. formal sufficiency & perspicuity.)

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the primary passage used to defend this view, which always boggles my mind. Perhaps I need spectacles, but I do not see an “Only” at the beginning of this verse. The Church teaches (as Scripture teaches) that all Scripture is valuable. She does not, however, turn it into an idol.

Some Protestants also claim to honor other authorities, like the Church – but do they really? In a short written debate with a Protestant professor, he said, “Sola Scriptura does not even claim that there is no other authority besides the Bible; it maintains that the Bible is alone (sola) as the only infallible authority.” Some apologists concede this position, but I see no reason to, and so I responded, “The practical effect [of Sola Scriptura] is that it denies the authoritativeness of any other authority – making that authority not an authority at all.” The professor quickly changed the topic.

Sacred Tradition (capital ‘T’) is, obviously, a stumbling block for many, but it is perfectly reasonable. Not everything of relevance could fit within the Bible (John 20:30-31, John 21:25). This is evidenced by the elaborations of the Church Fathers, as well as the decrees of the Councils. And much of this has been written and can therefore even qualify as (extra canon) Scripture! Anyway, all Scripture must be interpreted “according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church” (Origen).

Pope Francis noted, “Sacred Scripture is the written testimony of the divine Word, the canonical memory that attests to the event of Revelation. However, the Word of God precedes the Bible and surpasses it. That is why the center of our faith isn’t just a book, but a salvation history and above all a person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.” (cf. CCC #108). All teaching is valuable – God is not limited to a book compiled by His Bride. On this point, the Bible is like a wedding album shared by two spouses: the husband, typically, arranges and provides for everything, while his wife fills in the details – but still, at the end of the day, it does not sum up their whole marriage.

Another great blow to Sola Scriptura is that the Bible did not put itself together, and it does not list the books that belong within it. It took the Jews thousands of years to decide on the Tanakh (their canon) and, even then, “Hellenistic” Jews preferred the Septuagint! The only reason that we know which books comprise the Testaments is that the Church has informed us. If the Church, as Her own entity, is not infallible on such doctrine, then the Bible cannot be trusted.

Many Protestants also allude that absolute truth can only be found within the Bible. If I throw an apple up into the air, it will fall. Where is that in the Bible? Of course, one could quickly retort with the idea that the Bible only necessarily contains the absolute moral truth necessary for salvation. But many Protestants do not actually believe that – just look at the large crowds of literal creationists! To be clear, the Bible is not guaranteed to be totally historically or scientifically inerrant in a literal sense. “Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert.” [Catholic Answers] And if a Protestant would like to say otherwise, he must prove his position from the Bible – which he cannot do, at least not to any definite degree. Even natural law, which exists outside of the Bible, does not encompass such. Leaders like Ken Ham could be defeated with these points.

I just cannot help but despise this great heresy of Sola Scriptura, the implication of which is that the Bride of Christ does not know Her Husband.

I love the Second Vatican Council’s statement on all of this: “[T]he task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” (Dei Verbum)

Let us put it this way: only trusting the Bible without the Church would be like loving “Romeo and Juliet” and hating Shakespeare’s explanation of it.

---

“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.

---

[BipolarBob]

"In who's opinion???"

Mine for one. And one + God is always a majority.

[philly-d-kidder]

Mama Southern Baptist Believed in Abortion in 1970’s Do you believe in Abortion?

Jesus Said that the Catholic Church would prevail against the gates of hell until the end of Time... are you saying Christ was wrong?

The Protestants removed 7 Books from the Old Testament 15 Centuries Later.. isn’t that wrong?

[Salvation]

Information is presented. How you take it tells us a lot about yourself, right?

“As a man thinketh, so is he.”

[LurkingSince'98]

Hi Bi..

that is simple - either you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church or you leave.

No division - love it or leave it.

AMDG

[DManA]

Spit on your brother. Is that what the Spirit is telling you to do?

I don’t know if English is your first language

[DManA]

And also with you.

[Salvation]

**We didn’t divide **

No, Luther did. Up until that time everything was Catholic.

[CynicalBear]

Please find for me the concept of the word “church” in the Greek as it is used in the English today.

[Just mythoughts]

Protestants created the division in the first place. Great quote: “Since Christ suffered for the Church and since the Church is the body of Christ, without doubt the person who divides the Church is convicted of lacerating the body of Christ.” – Council of Florence, Session 9 (23 March 1440)

You are correct ... the first Protester, Christ, gave the 'money' quote ... Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather division:

The church is not suppose to be the object of worship.

[BipolarBob]

"that is simple - either you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church or you leave."

Exactly. I'm down with that. Your premise indicated that it signified some sign of superiority or infallibility. You didn't say it but implied it.

[Iscool]

The Tradition Protestants reject is the early church fathers writings in support of the Apostles writings. They travelled with Peter and John the Apostle and wrote of celebrating the TRUE Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Not an ounce of truth in that statement...

Excepting possibly PolyCarp, not a single one of the so-called church fathers traveled with or knew any apostles...And PolyCarp never mentioned anything about a Eucharist...Why would you make that up???

[DManA]

You judge Luther. You will be judged.

[matthewrobertolson]

1. Martin Luther was not excommunicated for exposing corruption, but for promoting many heresies. (LINK)

Also, on indulgences (from here):
The idea of a “restoration” being needed just before the “Reformation” also seems improbable. This common idea is based on the "selling" of indulgences [1, 2, 3] (Martin Luther attacks the practice multiple times in his Ninety-Five Theses), but is mostly due to a misunderstanding. Again, the Protestant understanding usually relies on the assault of characters: people like Johann Tetzel are demonized -- perhaps rightfully -- for abusing the system. But this abuse was not a doctrinal problem of the Church; rather, it was a disciplinary problem of men. Indulgences simply remove the temporal punishment due for past sin -- they are not a "Get out of Hell free" card -- and even when they were "sold," they required some sort of penance. Indulgences only have a salvatory effectiveness (remittance of time in Purgatory) if the recipient is already destined for Heaven. So, it would seem that the fuss is all about nothing.

2. Indeed, it was chronicled. See writings of the Church Fathers.

3. "The procedure for electing the pope has evolved over the history of the Church. In the early centuries, the clergy and people of Rome elected the successor, who usually had worked very closely with the previous pope." (See more.)

[Alex Murphy]

I’ve read a bit of Chesterton. What a bloviator. He has this formula to sound profound but when you think about what he says it is just trite - It is not that what the bible says is true, it is that what we say is true is the bible. Ok, Thanks G.K.

Mr. Furious: Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up". "If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's...
The Sphinx: Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage...
Mr. Furious: ..."your rage will become your master"? That's what you were going to say, right? Right?
The Sphinx: Not necessarily.

[HereInTheHeartland]

Is there as reason you post articles seeking to ignite strife in the body of Christ?

[Jvette]

God Bless you, matthew, for wanting to proclaim the truth, but it is lost on many here who would rather eat glass that accept the Catholic Church.

[DManA]

Exactly. That’s what I mean.

[matthewrobertolson]

Thank you, Jvette. Dominus vobiscum! :)

[CynicalBear]

1 John 2: 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

[DManA]

People criticize me for saying the obvious. What is obvious is that people criticize me. Uh, wait......