Bible alone? Part 2
Yesterday I began speaking about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. A lot could be written concerning the problems with this Formal Principle of the Reformation, but I will leave that to better minds. Instead, over the next two days I would just like to focus on the two main problems which drove me to consider more deeply the validity of the doctrine. After being involved in the Protestant world for a few years, two problems nagged at me:
Problem #1: Correct interpretation
This first problem was one that I saw first-hand. In my various non-Catholic wanderings, I had encountered some great pastors: faithful, holy and insightful. I was greatly encouraged by their witness and learned a great deal from them.
However, I began to notice that, even within the same parish, there was quite often a considerable diversity in theological opinions. Within the home groups there was also considerable latitude in belief and when a dispute arose, there wasn’t a clear path towards finding a resolution other than asking one of the church staff, and even then you couldn’t guarantee that you’d get the same answer from two different staff members. There was also a mild form of dissension in that the Pastor’s Sermon was often critiqued after the service and it would be discussed as to whether or not everyone agreed with it.
Denomination Diversity
These are only personal, anecdotal impressions, of course. However, when you consider different denominations, these interpretive disputes can be seen more clearly. Some denominations believe in infant baptism, others do not. Some denominations believe that baptism actually does something in the soul of the one being baptised, others affirm that it is just an outward symbol. Likewise, some denominations affirm some concept of Jesus’ real presence in the Eucharist, while others say that it is, again, just a symbol. Some denominations have female pastors, others say that’s invalid. Some affirm the Trinity, others deny it. This lack of doctrinal unity in the Protestant world concerned me greatly.
Right at the dawn of the Reformation you had Luther and Zwingli, two early leaders of the Reformation, disagreeing over the correct interpretation of “This is my body” – Luke 22:19. Each presented his own private, fallible interpretation of that passage, but with no Church Authority to resolve the dispute, there was no possible way to resolve the deadlock.
So what happened? What happened was a foretaste of what was going to happen forever after in the Protestant world – there would be a split. Two different churches would be formed and the Body would be further fragmented. Luther had unwittingly made each individual Christian his or her own Pope. If you read some of the letters Luther wrote towards the end of his life he seemed to recognize this chaos.
The Response
The most common Protestant response I have received when I’ve brought up this issue has been something akin to: “Oh, it doesn’t matter, just as long as we agree on the essentials”. However, this begs the question: what are the essentials and who gets to decide what’s essential and what isn’t?! One view of Baptism says that it is of highest importance for salvation, another view says that it’s just public declaration of faith. This one issue alone relates to the very core questions of salvation – it’s hardly a peripheral issue.
The question of interpretation
So if doctrinal unity is important, how do we ensure that we have the correct interpretation of Scripture? When I raised this question I was told something like “Well, you have to study the Word carefully, interpret it in context, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truth”.
The sentiment here is lovely, but it really doesn’t bear out when placed against the canvas of history. That mode of exegesis, more or less, has been affirmed by every Protestant in history, but has this resulted in doctrinal unity? From the vast number of denominations I think it’s clear that the answer is a clear and resounding “No”.
Let’s do a hypothetical. Imagine a scenario in which two intelligent, Bible-believing pastors at the same church, both well-versed in Greek and Hebrew and living lives of fruitful virtue, disagree over the interpretation of a passage of Scripture. Now what? How is this deadlock resolved? As far as I see it, there are only two possible options:
1. They have to “agree to disagree” and declare the matter relatively unimportant. However, as we saw above many of these questions surround the very issue of salvation, something of utmost importance.
2. The only alternative is the modus operandi of Protestantism since the dawn of the Reformation, division. The pastors will go form new congregations and teach what it is they believe the Scriptures say. If at some future point there is new disagreement within the new congregations, the congregation will split again. Rinse and repeat.
It seems to me that what is needed is an authoritative interpreter. However, when I was in Protestant circles I would often hear things like “The Bible is all you need!”. Is the Bible all you need? Is it sufficient? In the Catholic Church we would say that it is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. For example, if you had a canvas, some paint and a woman with a curious smile you would materially have all you needed to paint the Mona Lisa. However, without being a great artist like Leonardo DaVinci, it’s unlikely that your painting would end up in the Louvre! Raw materials are not enough, they must be used correctly.
The Many Popes of Protestantism
I remember that as I started to think about this problem, the reason for the doctrinal variations in the Protestant world over critical aspects of belief started to become clear to me. If the Bible is your only source of authority, then who is to say that you’re interpretation is wrong?
The presence of thousands of Protestant denominations started to seem to be an inevitable consequence of this doctrine, there being as many churches as there are individual interpretations. So when somebody says “I believe what the Bible says…”, don’t they really mean “I believe what I interpret the Bible to say”? To read Scripture is to interpret Scripture. The locus of final authority really resides not in Scripture, but in the person interpreting it.This is why the more nuanced definitions of Sola Scriptura are pretty redundant; they all boil down to the same thing: my own personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture. As a former pastor of mine says “If nobody is Pope, then everybody is Pope”.
Tomorrow I’ll look at the second problem which pursued me…
Pingback: Bible alone? Part 2 - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration
> You say sola scriptura is not valid, that we also are to rely on traditions and oral teachigns of the Popes but how about if the Popes start teaching us a false doctrine?
That’s not a tremendously accurate portrayal of Catholic teaching (again, I’d invite you to go and read Dei Verbum). However, it ‘s equivalent to the Atheistic objection that God could make a rock so heavy he couldn’t lift it.
> Paul told us that even in the church there would be many false teachings Acts 20:30
It’s a rather cheeky question, but how do you know Paul wasn’t giving false teaching when he wrote that?
> We believe everything the apostles wrote in scripture is true…
Why?
Also, how do you know what is and isn’t Scripture?
> however I do not believe that future generations would also be preaching the truth
Why do you make this distinction? Also, if later generations wouldn’t necessarily teach the truth, how can you be sure that (a) the correct books were added to the Bible (b) that the Bible hasn’t been fiddled with.
> that is why I adhere to the concept of Sola Scriptura because men are NOT to be trusted.
You believed that God could protect Peter from error when he wrote 1 & 2 Peter…why not afterwards?
> Catholics claim the church is the pillar of truth but based on the word of God and not based on contradictions to the bible.
Ouch…you might like to go and look at 1 Timothy 3:15, it’s not the Bible that’s said to be the foundation of truth…
> You say Popes do not contradict the bible but they are (I will post them to you)
I already have a good idea of the list you’re going to copy and paste from another website…
> but first let me challenge your interpretation of Matthew 16:16-19 where suppodsely Jesus mentioned infallibility apostolic succession etc
My response is here. However, I want to point out that you’ve moved away from trying to give me a positive case for Sola Scriptura and are instead attacking apostolic succession and Papal authority. If you want to talk about that, please do it on the linked article.
> In these verses Jesus never whatsoever directly stated Peter would be the pope, infallibility, apostolic succession.
We’re back to the Trinity question again, picking and choosing as to how explicit something has to be in Scripture.
> There can also be many other things applicable to these verses (besides the things you are applying)
For example, the keys of the kingdom of heaven can also be referring to preaching the gospel. Peter would be preaching the gospel (the gospel is the key to the kingdom of heaven).
Where on earth do you get that from the text? Isaiah and the structure of the Davidic Kingdom makes far more contextual sense.
> Jesus did not only give the authority to bind and loose in earth and heaven to Peter but in Matthew 1:15-18 he was talking to ALL his disciples.
Exactly and that is completely compatible with Catholic understanding. All the bishops have authority, but there is only one Pope with the keys.
> There is no indication that Jesus was talking to Peter alone
When He gave him the keys, yes there is. It’s in the grammar (you, singular).
> What can be applicable to loosing and binding in earth and heaven can also be referring to the apostles saving souls in earth and binding this in heaven.
Again, what in the text would make you say that. You can’t just make up a meaning, you have to give an explanation as to why.
> You might be asking me, how come my interpretation is not correct but only yours?
Well, that is the real bite with Sola Scriptura – nobody can ever say anyone else’s interpretation is wrong since each individual Christian is his or her own Pope.
> If you read other books of the bible your interpretation is not supported. Colossians 1:18 and Ephesians 5:23 say Jesus is the head of the church.
Firstly, you’ve now wandered from talking about Papal Infallibility to the title of the Pope as head of the Church. Secondly, Colossians and Ephesians don’t cause problems within the Catholic understanding.
> John 16 says the Substittute would be the Holy Spirit to lead us in our lives.
The substitute?
Also, the Holy Spirit was not the only thing Jesus gave the Church. He gave the Church leaders and authorities. To see what the Church looks without it all you have to do is look at the doctrinal chaos of the THOUSANDS of Protestant denominations.
> 1 Peter 5:1 Peter declared himself as a fellow elder
And? Pope Francis is also an elder. He’s also an overseer…and Pope.
> Nowhere in the book of Acts states that Peter had authority over the other disciples. Peter was a leader in the church but he never was portrayed as having supreme authority over the others
It seems like you want to say two different things here – Peter both had authority and had none – which was it?
> Galatians 2:9 mentions James, Cephas(Peter) and John being pillars. Ephesians 2:19-20 teaches all apostles, and prophets were the foundation with Jesus being the cornerstone. Do you see how being the foundation and pillar is not only applicable to Peter?1 Peter 2:25, Peter said that Jesus is our Shepherd and Overseer of our souls.
Nope. You’re assuming and either/or approach to the text. This happens a lot in Protestant-Catholic dialogue. For example, Jesus is the Good Shepherd, right?However, that doesn’t exclude the fact that He calls others to be shepherds for Him. Feed my sheep.
> Now do I think the Popes are contradicting scripture? certainly they are. I have pointed to you on how the popes are engaging in idolatry, they are contradicting the bible by declaring Mary a virgin and sinless.
Nope, you’ve just given your faulty understanding of idolatry and your faulty understanding of Catholic teaching.
> The 7 sacraments contradict the bible
…and yet another topic…
> In the book of Acts baptism was always on adults after a profession of faith in Christ. Catholics claim baptism washes away your original sin but 1 John 1:7 states it is Jesus’ blood what washes away our sins.
….and yet another topic. There’s little point continuing this you can’t stay focussed. If you look in the sidebar you’ll see I have other posts on Baptism. Again, the historic understanding of Baptism is that it washes away sin. To disagree with that means to disagree with the majority of Christian history.
> The priesthood is viewed as mediators between men and God example, people confess their sins to a priest and the priests offer the sacrifice (eucharist) in the same way the old testament priests offered the sacrificed lamb. The laws of the old testament were voided in the new testament.
…and another topic… Again, check out the sidebar for posts on the Eucharist and the priesthood.
> These are only few examples there are more, I know you will try to come out with an excuse to justify them because you will never accept that your church is an apostate church but I would never engage myself in these practices just because the popes declare authority.
It may interest you to know that I was once Protestant.
> No pope has the authority to damn me to hell
Erm…what makes you think that Catholics think he can?
> You say I have to submit myself to the catholic church because they put the canon together, (them putting the cannon together is a lie)
If you’d like to prove that, please do. I would submit that you can’t talk about the canon without either (a) mentioning Catholic priests and bishops of the early centuries or (b) making bold statements without evidence.
> but even if this was true, you asking me to do this is like asking Jesus to submit himself to the pharisees just because they put the books of the old testament together. The Pharisees were the keepers of the books of the old testament and the Law but at the same time they were disobeying the Word of God.
What did Jesus say about the Pharisees?
You are great David. I love it. Thanks.