Bible alone? Part 1
Today I’d like to speak about “Bible Alone” Christianity, also known by its Latin name, “Sola Scriptura”.
Sola Scriptura is an important issue to discuss because it underpins virtually all of Protestantism. It was the Formal Principle of the Reformation. This topic has come up in every discussion I’ve ever had with non-Catholics. It is the major Protestant presupposition and, although the Catholic Faith can certainly be defended from Sacred Scripture, this presupposition really needs to be tackled early on in any Catholic-Protestant dialogue.
This article is another of those half-written posts which languished in my “Drafts” folder for a long, long time. I had intended to write a substantial and thorough article concerning Sola Scriptura since my own realization concerning the shortcomings of this doctrine was the tipping point in my return to the Catholic Church.
However, once again, my desire to write a thorough post has prevented me from writing anything at all. I resisted writing until I had time to do the subject matter justice. So, once again I am forced to return to the words of G.K. Chesterton “If something is worth doing, it’s worth doing badly”. Rather than waiting until I can do a perfect job I’m just going to sit down, write something and get it out there. So, please put on your crash helmets…here we go…
Interpreting the meaning of “Sola Scriptura”
At this point it might be an idea to speak about definitions. The exact meaning of Sola Scriptura can’t really be exactly nailed down because, rather ironically, these words mean something slightly different to each Protestant group.
However, I would say that the mainstream Evangelical understanding of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the only infallible source of authority and doctrine. There are some variations either side of this view, of course. Some groups do have some concept of Sacred Tradition, an appreciation of Creeds and Church Authority, while others move in the other direction, rejecting anything not explicitly found in the Bible.
Bible Beginnings
I’ve told parts of my story before, but I’d like to take a few minutes to retell a little bit of it again, this time focusing on the role of Sacred Scripture in that journey.
At university I had a profound religious renewal. It was during this time that my faith became truly my own and not simply inherited from my mother. Instrumental in this renewal of faith was an encounter with Sacred Scripture and a Catholic community called “Verbum Dei”.
The community of Verbum Dei was associated with a parish in the city where I was attending university and I soon began attending their events. Those of you who grew up in Ancient Rome will know that Verbum Dei is Latin for “Word of God”. Praying of Sacred Scripture was a prime focus in the community and this formed a large part of my renewed faith formation. As I experienced the impact of the Word of God in my heart and life, my love for the Bible grew greatly and it became my “daily bread” in a very real way.
We didn’t just read Scripture though, we prayed it. We didn’t just attempt to understand and exegete Scripture, but to read it slowly and meditatively, listening to the promptings of the Spirit. If you have ever come into contact with Lectio Divina, you will know the sort of thing I’m talking about.
After I left university, I became increasingly disenchanted with the Catholic Church. In the face of lukewarm parishes and sermons filled with pallid platitudes, Sacred Scripture continued to be my source of light and sustenance. Over time, almost imperceptibly, I became a “Sola Scripture” Christian. I came to believe that Scripture, and only Scripture had authority over me. I loved Sacred Scripture and I was therefore very comfortable with any doctrine which placed what I loved most above all else.
However, after several years of experiencing the consequences of Sola Scriptura, together with some well-placed questions asked by a certain Benedictine monk, I eventually came to reject this doctrine, concluding that it was logically inconsistent, unworkable, unhistorical and even unscriptural.
I’ll pick this up again tomorrow…
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
“Those of you who grew up in Ancient Rome…”
Pingback: The Difference Between Solo-Scriptura and Sola-Scriptura | Catholic Defender Daily
The following comment was posted on another thread. Since it wasn’t relevant to the discussion, I moved it here:
> I know that you guys do not believe in Sola Scripture
No, because it was a doctrine not taught by Scripture and wasn’t invented until 16th Century. If you disagree, I’d invite you to quote the Scripture passage where Scripture makes those claims for itself, as well as the names of those Christians in those early centuries who taught this doctrine.
> I know that you also go by traditions of the priests but let me tell you this, I would never trust a man over the Word of God
You’re setting up a false dilemma here. You’re presupposing that tradition cannot be the word of God. In doing this, you condemn the Thessalonians for following this instruction of Paul: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). St. Paul here equates his oral preaching, the stuff that hadn’t been written down, with his writings which we call Scripture.
> If something is not written in the bible I would rather not follow it because who knows, the devil is using people to deceive me.
Does the Table of Contents of your Bible count as “Scripture”? If not, then you’re trusting something that isn’t Scripture.
You face the problem that it was the Catholic Church who assembled and transmitted the Bible. If you don’t agree with this, please give me the names and dates of those who assembled the canon and some of the names of those who copied the Scriptures down through those early centuries prior to the printing press.
> You should check the history of the RCC on how many doctrines have been evolving throughout the years, for example, Mary being sinless was stated in 1854, Mary taken to heaven alive in 1929.
The full divinity of Christ was declared at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Did the Church not proclaim Christ’s divinity prior to that?
> God created Adam and Even sinless but all descendants of Adam and Eve are born in sin there are NO exceptions (Romans 3:10, Psalms 14:1)
I address this objection here.
Here is my response to another comment from Monica on another thread:
> Revelations 22:19 says “And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.” God already did and said everything he needed to do and say. There is nothing more to be added such as all the doctrines that the Popes have been adding throughout the centuries.
Wait, where’s Sola Scriptura in this verse? Where does it say that the Bible is the only authority for Christians?
What is “this scroll of prophecy” that’s mentioned? The Book of Revelation or the entire Bible?
If you interpret this passage in the exclusive, absolute sense in which I think you’re interpreting it, then I think you’ll get into trouble when you run into Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 4:2
> You quoted to me 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2 where the apostles told us to hold on to their traditions but traditions based on things that they had taught or written in the bible
Yes, which immediately causes amazing problems for Sola Scriptura since it indicates that Scripture alone is not the only authority.
> They were not referring to traditions that contradicted the bible
Yes, I completely agree.
> The Catholic Church is engaging in many traditions that contradict scripture.
This is an assertion. You need to substantiate that claim.
> Acts 17:11 says “for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”. In the bible you see people believing only what was written in scripture
Are you saying that the Bereans received no new revelation through Paul? Of course they were! Paul was telling them that Jesus was the Messiah! What they were doing was comparing what Paul was telling them with the prophecies concerning the Messiah. There’s no Sola Scriptura here I’m afraid. If they truly were Sola Scriptura followers they would have had to have rejected what Paul said as a possible “tradition of man” and go off the Old Testament alone.
> Yes it is true that not everything is written in scripture such as how many of the apostles died, but at least none of these things are contradicting the bible
So, you agree that the Bible isn’t an exhaustive reference to the Christian Faith nor does it chronicle every single thing that happened in the Early Church. Good.
> There are many doctrines being created by the pope that are contradicting scripture
Again, this is an assertion. You need to substantiate that claim.
Monica is right when she wrote–“The Catholic Church is engaging in many traditions that contradict scripture.”
A celibate leadership is one example and the Marian dogmas are another. Also the idea that a person must be in subjection to the pope for salvation is another.
> Monica is right when she wrote–“The Catholic Church is engaging in many traditions that contradict scripture.” A celibate leadership is one example and the Marian dogmas are another. Also the idea that a person must be in subjection to the pope for salvation is another
This doesn’t exactly interact with anything I’ve written here. If you want to argue with St. Paul and Jesus over the subject of celibacy, I’d invite you to do that on the post where I discuss that issue. The same goes for the other issues you’ve raised.
However, if you’re looking for something to respond to, I’m far more interested in hearing your response to the question that I asked here which you have yet to answer. You said that Polycarp was a “real” Christian and I provided you with a quotation from one of his letters where he quotes the book of Tobit and speaks of works being involved in salvation. How do you explain this? Is this the kind of thing you’d hear said in your congregation?
These are traditions-doctrines-practices that do indeed contradict the Scripture. Just look at I Timothy 3 for the requirements for church leadership. Celibacy is not a requirement.
Roscoe, as I said, if you want to talk about celibacy, please go and do it on the post where I talk about it.
Am I likely to get an answer to my question about Polycarp?
What did Polycarp mean when he wrote–“alms delivers from death”?
> What did Polycarp mean when he wrote–“alms delivers from death”
Well, given the context of the book of Tobit, I’d say it means that we’re not saved by faith alone. Does that sound like something a proto-Protestant would say?
If Polycarp is quoting from Tobit then he is speaking falsely. Jesus nor His apostles never taught that “alms delivers from death”. The only thing that saves a man is faith in Christ alone. See Eph 2:8-9
Keep in mind that Polycarp was not inspired nor an apostles. He could and did err in some things like this.
> If Polycarp is quoting from Tobit then he is speaking falsely
But you said he was a “true” Christian. Could a “true” Christian have the Gospel so wrong?
> Jesus nor His apostles never taught that “alms delivers from death”
It sounds an awful lot like Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46… In that parable, what is the criteria for judgement: Faith or works?
> The only thing that saves a man is faith in Christ alone. See Eph 2:8-9
That’s not what that passage says. Nowhere does it say “faith alone”. It speaks about salvation through grace rather than through works of the Mosaic Law.
> Keep in mind that Polycarp was not inspired nor an apostles. He could and did err in some things like this
But you identified him as a “true” Christian. How could a “true” Christian think that salvation has anything to do with works?!
Polycarp is just one person, but the problem really comes when we discover that not a single Church Father understands salvation in the way that you do…. Nobody teaches Sola Fide until 16th Century…
Was Polycarp referring to the gospel when he wrote–““alms delivers from death”?
“alms delivers from death” is not about Matt 25:31-46. Its not even mentioned. In regards to this passage about the judgement what is required of a person to be a “sheep”? What are the characteristics of a sheep that Jesus mentions in the gospels?
For the Christian, his sins have already been judged and punished at the cross. The price has been paid in full. See Col 2:13-14. There will be a judgement of the deeds a Christian has done in his body but this is not about salvation. See 2 Cor 5:10
In Eph 2:8-9 what else does it say that is required to be saved?
Polycarp was a Christian but he did not understand the all the Scripture correctly. Even Christians can have false beliefs on some things.
If any church father says that a man can be saved by keeping the law or by works then he is speaking falsely. Works are not the cause of salvation but the fruit of it.
> Was Polycarp referring to the gospel when he wrote–”“alms delivers from death”?
He’s talking about salvation. Either way, does this sound like something a Protestant, a “true” Christian, would say?
> “alms delivers from death” is not about Matt 25:31-46. Its not even mentioned.
I never said it was. That quotation from Tobit speaks of the role of works in salvation. We find the same idea in Jesus’ story about the sheep and the goats.
> In regards to this passage about the judgement what is required of a person to be a “sheep”? What are the characteristics of a sheep that Jesus mentions in the gospels?
You rather avoided my question. In this scene of the final judgement, “faith” is not mentioned once. Faith is presupposed.
The thing which separates the sheep from the goats is the love with which they lived their lives and how that love found concrete expression: feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison… In Catholic theology, we call these “works of mercy”.
The goats are not cast into Hell for what they do or don’t believe, but from the things they did or did not do. Does this sound like Sola Fide? Would a Protestant really talk about this?
> There will be a judgement of the deeds a Christian has done in his body but this is not about salvation
Are you suggesting that’s what the Sheep and the Goats is about? If so, that makes little sense to me given where the goats go after this judgement…
> In Eph 2:8-9 what else does it say that is required to be saved?
Is Ephesians 2:8-9 the only thing that Scripture says about salvation? It isn’t, so why exclude those other verses?
> Polycarp was a Christian but he did not understand the all the Scripture correctly. Even Christians can have false beliefs on some things
So you are saying that you understand Scripture better than a disciple of the Apostle John? That’s quite a bold statement…
> If any church father says that a man can be saved by keeping the law…
None of them would because that’s not Catholic teaching.
> Works are not the cause of salvation but the fruit of it
If a man has faith but no works, can that faith save him?