I saw a
video recently by a Catholic named Bryan Mercier, who seems to be an
intelligent guy who is passionate about the Catholic faith. He is a Catholic speaker, author, and
apologist and is also president of an organization called Catholic Truth.
In his video
titled “2 Catholic Questions Protestants
can’t Answer,” Bryan attempts to tackle the issue of Sola Scriptura (Bible
Alone). His video can be found here:
Definitions
Bryan sees,
as part of the problem, that Protestants can’t even agree on a definition of
Sola Scriptura. Well, that may be somewhat true, but in my opinion, most
of the serious adherents of Sola Scriptura in Protestantism do pretty much
agree on the definition that I would use, and that is:
“Scripture
is the only infallible rule of faith for the church today.”
They may
word it slightly differently from each other, but in general, the definitions
I’ve seen are very similar. Even though
we don’t have a “pope” in Protestantism to make everything “official,” we still
very much agree on the concept of the “Bible alone.”
By the way,
Bryan is bemoaning the division in Protestantism on this topic, but I would
like to point out that many Catholics
disagree amongst themselves on different doctrines of the Catholic Church. So Catholics need not act as though they have
the high ground here.
I do want to
say, though, that I find most of the bad definitions of Sola Scriptura are in
Catholic circles. And by “bad”
definitions, I mean unbiblical ones. I
believe that the concept of Sola Scriptura is indeed biblical, but of course there
are many (mostly Catholic) people who would disagree. That’s why we have these discussions.
First Question to Protestants
Having said
that, here is the first question that Bryan Mercier poses to Protestants:
· Question 1:
“Can you show me from the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) where does it say,
or where does it give a definition for Sola Scriptura?”
He then
brings out certain Scripture passages that some Protestants would use to support
the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and then tries to debunk the Protestant
arguments. For example, he brings up Acts
17, where the apostle Paul and Silas come to the city of Berea:
“These were more noble
than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of
mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts
17:11)
Bryan then implies,
“So what?” The Catholic Church has
searched the Scriptures for 2,000 years.
Yet simply searching the Scriptures doesn’t prove the concept of Sola
Scriptura.
That might
be true, but while this verse alone may not fully prove the concept of Sola
Scriptura, it is a valid and biblical move in that direction, because the
Bereans were searching “whether those things were so.” In other words, they were verifying the words
of an apostle of the church (Paul). That
is, they were confirming what a highest-ranking church leader was telling them
and not just taking his word for it simply because he was a church official! They were testing an apostle with Scripture (just as the church of Ephesus did in Revelation
2:2)! Yes, that’s right, even the
apostle Paul had to be tested to make sure that his message lined up with what
was already recognized as Scripture (the Old Testament). Notice that Paul didn’t say, “Hey, why are
you guys looking this up? Don’t you
trust me? I am a church leader (just
like Peter) and you need to take me at my word!
How dare you check up on me!”
No, rather the
Bereans were actually commended in Acts
17:11 for checking out what Paul was teaching, like they were supposed
to. Like I said, while this text alone
may not be a proof of Sola Scriptura,
it was a definite move in that direction, to be ultimately realized when the
last apostle died and there would be no more new revelation from God.
An Example of Scripture Over
Everything Else
Furthermore,
Paul, though he was an apostle, told the Galatian church that anyone, including
himself, who dared to bring another
gospel to the church, one which was different than what he had first preached,
was condemned! In fact, his words were:
“But though WE [i.e., Paul
and Silas], or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, preach any other gospel unto you than
that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)
If you think
that Paul was not serious, he then repeats
it in the next verse:
“As we said before, so
say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:9)
So, again,
we see here that Scripture (the gospel message) was above even the authority of
the apostles and angels, and that any other/different gospel brought by anyone should be tested by the Bible and
rejected.
One of
Bryan’s comments was that the Jews (being God’s chosen people) didn’t believe
in Sola Scriptura. Well that’s true, at
least at the beginning of the church/New Testament age, but that’s because
there was still new and ongoing revelation from God in that day, coming through
the apostles. As long as there were
apostles around, new revelation was coming from God to the church. Therefore, “Scripture alone,” as an infallible source was not a possibility at that point. Protestants believe that Sola Scriptura
exists only for the post-apostolic
church.
Second Question to Protestants
Bryan now
mentions (part of) the most common Scripture passage that Protestants use to
support Sola Scriptura.
· Question 2:
“In 2 Timothy 3:16, where does it say, and how do you know, that it
said, ‘All Scripture is inspired…’ or God-breathed?”
Notice that
Bryan never mentions the next verse (v. 17), which is indeed key to
understanding the concept of Sola Scriptura.
But he goes on to point out that the New Testament word in v. 16
for “inspired” is “theopneustos” (literally translated “God-breathed”
in the Greek), but that it could be rendered as “life-giving” instead. In fact, he falsely says that “There is no
evidence of it meaning God-breathed in that whole chapter.”
So Bryan
leans heavily toward its meaning as “life-giving,” because (he claims) 90%-95%
of the time, external Greek sources used it that way.
And he is
convinced that the context of 2 Timothy 3 is exactly about that – about
“people who are dead in their sins and how they can come to life…” Therefore, (he says) it should mean
“life-giving” more than “inspired.” In
fact, Bryan claims that the context of the passage supports “infinitely more”
the idea of life-giving rather than God-breathed.
Well, that
sounds nice, but no, the context of 2 Timothy 3:14-17 is not primarily about “people who are dead in
their sins and how they can come to life…” as Bryan is suggesting. But this passage is primarily and specifically about
the origin, nature and power of the Scriptures, as a rule of faith, to instruct, convict, correct and enable the
man of God to fully equip the Christian.
Yes, the Bible is indeed “life-giving,” but it is far more than
that. Not only is this passage saying
that Scripture originates with God,
but it is inspired by God as the only
infallible source and rule of faith
for the church today.
Bryan is deliberately
trying to downplay the power and authority
of the Scriptures – something I’m sure he would never do with the authority of
the Catholic Church. He is purposely
trying to introduce a more watered-down
term to describe the Holy Scriptures!
But the Bible is indeed God-breathed, since it eclipses every other
source. See these links:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-apostles-practice-sola-scriptura.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/11/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html
And the
first of a series of eight articles on Sola Scriptura, starting here:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/03/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-1.html
There are
also many other articles on Sola Scriptura on this blog – not to mention many
excellent articles throughout the internet done by other highly qualified
Protestants.
Hit and Run
Toward the
end of the video, Bryan hints at a “freebie,” a third question for Protestants.
And this freebie question is on the biblical canon, i.e., the “official”
list of books in the Bible that the church recognizes. But this freebie is simply a “hit and run”
diversion. He brings it up as though it
is a valid argument against “Bible Alone.” But the canon is a topic that is impossible to
do justice on, by only mentioning it in passing, as Bryan does. Some of my dealings with this topic can be
found in these links:
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/08/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-8.html
https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/12/using-canon-as-smokescreen.html
Conclusion
Catholics
will say that Protestants always assume
the concept of Sola Scriptura when they debate.
Maybe so, but I think that there is good reason to do so.
I know that
it is hard to shake off one’s bias and preconceived notions, but I find it hard
to believe that an honest Catholic and an honest Protestant would not be able
to come to the table, using Scripture (the main thing that we have in common), trying
to remain as unbiased and unemotional as possible, lay out all the evidence on
either side, and NOT come to the same conclusion. I believe that it is these preconceived traditions
(and emotions) that we hold that suppress the truth. Both sides need to be careful not to allow
excess emotion in proving their respective cases. To me, the evidence in the Bible for Sola
Scriptura is overwhelming. Again, see
the links just above.
A large part
of the disagreement, I believe, is the different Catholic and Protestant
goals. The stated goal of the Catholic
is too often to bring people to the
Church, while the goal of the Protestant is to bring people to Jesus
Christ. I know that many Catholics will
deny this, but in practice, this is often absolutely true.
Sola
Scriptura is an extremely important topic, but I feel that Bryan Mercier’s
arguments were weak and unconvincing.
No other rule of faith mentioned in Scripture is considered
God-breathed and able to equip us (the church) for every good work (2
Timothy 3:16-17).
