QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 7)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

There is another attack on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, an attack which doesn’t seem to be as common as the previous arguments.  But it is more of an attempt to address the “practical” side of the Sola Scriptura debate.

This article will only be “specific” in the sense that it is only about practical issues concerning Sola Scriptura.  Within this framework we will touch on several different, but related, points:

ARGUMENT #7 – THE CONCEPT OF SOLA SCRIPTURA CANNOT BE TRUE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL FOR THE EARLY CHURCH.  FOR EXAMPLE, HOW COULD IT BE TRUE BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE PRINTING PRESS IN THE 1400’S?  FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA TO WORK BACK THEN, THERE HAD TO BE PLENTIFUL ACCESS TO SCRIPTURE - EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE HAD THEIR OWN PERSONAL BIBLE.  BUT VERY FEW COULD AFFORD TO OWN A BIBLE, AND MOST PEOPLE WERE ILLITERATE, ANYWAY.  ALSO, IN THOSE DAYS, BECAUSE OF THE LONG DAYS OF HARD LABOR, EVEN IF THEY COULD READ, THEY DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO STUDY LIKE WE DO TODAY.  FURTHERMORE, A LACK OF PROPER NUTRITION PREVENTED THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO PROPERLY STUDY GOD’S WORD.  SO BECAUSE OF ALL THESE PRACTICAL REASONS, SOLA SCRIPTURA COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.

All these are misrepresentations of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  Let us remember the simple definition of Sola Scriptura that we shared at the beginning of this series:

“Scripture is the only infallible Rule of Faith for the church today.”

With this definition in mind, one should recognize the fact that easy availability or mass distribution of Bibles has nothing to do with the truthfulness of Sola Scriptura.  A person does not need to own a Bible in order for Sola Scriptura to be true.  It is true whether he owns a Bible or not.  Scripture can be the only infallible Rule of Faith even if only a few Bibles exist.

Literacy and education also have nothing to do with the truthfulness of Sola Scriptura.  Scripture can be (and is) the Ultimate Authority, whether a person can read or not.  And just because someone can’t read or write does not mean that he is stupid or that he has no comprehension skills.  Even if illiterate, he may still easily memorize Bible verses and understand biblical concepts that he was taught by someone else.  The learning and spreading of God’s Word was not prevented by illiteracy.  

The fact that many in the early church were illiterate proves nothing.  Just as they were taught their catechism by others, they could just as easily have learned the Scriptures from others.  God is fully able and willing to reveal Himself to the lowly, the poor, and the uneducated (Matthew 11:25; 1 Corinthians 1:26-27; Acts 4:13; Proverbs 1:1-7; Psalm 119:130).  But being illiterate does not demand that one should need an “infallible” Magisterium to teach him.

Concerning the people of the early church not having time, we all have 24 hours in every day.  Anyone can take a Bible passage, ponder on it, and have discussions about it during the day while working.  It is not just the mere reading of it that counts.

Concerning improper nutrition, this is a pitiful argument for two reasons:  1) The church leaders more than likely had the same basic diet that the “common people” had, so how is it that church leaders were able to learn?  And 2) If the common people could understand the catechism and other teachings that were taught to them, they could certainly also understand Scripture that was taught to them.  It takes no more nourishment to understand Scripture than it does these other things.   

But to further demonstrate the absurdity of these arguments, let’s put them in simpler terms:

Imagine being at a baseball game and there was a dispute about the official rule book of baseball (i.e., its ultimate authority).  What if someone said about this rule book:

• “This can’t be the ultimate authority because everyone in the stands and all the players don’t have a copy of it!”

• “This can’t be the ultimate authority because I can’t read!”

•  “This can’t be the ultimate authority because I don’t have time to study it!”

• “This can’t be the ultimate authority because I haven’t eaten anything all week and my thinking is not up to par!”

These are all equally ridiculous reasons, but many Catholics (and others) resort to using these same arguments against Sola Scriptura.  None of the above reasons stops the official rule book in baseball from being the ultimate authority for baseball.  In the same way, these arguments cannot be applied against Sola Scriptura.  Thus, the “Sola-Scriptura-doesn’t-work-because-it-is-impractical” argument is shown to be an empty one.

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 6)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

Today, we will address another specific attack on Sola Scriptura (by Catholics and others), one that acknowledges a somewhat higher level of the sufficiency of Scripture.  It goes like this:

ARGUMENT #6 – WE BELIEVE IN THE “MATERIAL” SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE, BUT NOT ITS “FORMAL” SUFFICIENCY.  MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY MEANS THAT THE BIBLE HAS ALL THE MATERIAL IN IT TO TEACH ALL THE RIGHT DOCTRINES.  BUT FORMAL SUFFICIENCY MEANS IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE RIGHT FORM, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND IT.  BUT SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY DIVISIONS AND DISAGREEMENTS AMONG THOSE WHO PRACTICE SOLA SCRIPTURA, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WE NEED AN INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM TO PROPERLY INTERPRET THE BIBLE FOR US.  SO, SCRIPTURE IS ONLY “MATERIALLY SUFFICIENT” AND NOT “FORMALLY SUFFICIENT.”

For the record, not all Catholics believe in the “material sufficiency” view, but many do.  A commonly used example of material sufficiency is that the Bible can be compared to a pile of bricks to be used to build a house.  All the “parts” are there, but they are not in the right order and, by themselves, they can only lay there… they can’t put themselves in place.  A master bricklayer must put them in place to properly build the house.  In a similar manner, they say Scripture has all the “parts,” but lacks the ability to “build” its doctrine since it can’t interpret itself, so we need someone with special authority to correctly interpret the contents of Scripture.  And apparently, the “infallible” Catholic Magisterium is the only one who has this authority.  At least, that’s the argument they use.

These Catholics would tell us that Scripture is insufficient since it’s in the “wrong form” to be used by itself as a Rule of Faith, and because of that, using Scripture alone will cause confusion and division, like we see in Protestantism.  They say Scripture is not laid out in a “formalized” or “systematic” manner as you might find in a catechism, for example.  Maybe so.  But then, in what “form” should Scripture be?  How does one determine that it is in the wrong form?  God, the Father, never said this.  Jesus Christ does not say this.  No, it is man who makes this false claim.  

We believe that the reader should be very hesitant to suggest that Scripture is in any way insufficient as a rule of faith.  Especially in light of the evidence we shared in Parts 1 through 5 of this series of articles which have previously addressed several other common Catholic arguments.  And the weakness of each of these arguments has already been demonstrated.  Scripture is indeed sufficient as a Rule of Faith.

So, why do (some) Catholics believe that the Bible is only materially sufficient?  It’s because this is all about a supposed NEED for “infallible certainty.”  That’s what this argument is all about… creating the need for an “infallible” entity (the Magisterium) to provide “infallible certainty” for its members, causing an unbiblical dependence on the Magisterium.  

But this “wrong form” argument is just an insulting deception to allow other “infallible” sources to enter into the picture (for the post-apostolic church).  

We don’t need INFALLIBLE certainty when interpreting the Bible.   Infallible certainty is God’s domain, not man’s.   But God can (and does) give us sufficient certainty in Bible interpretation.

Here is an article on that topic: 

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html#comment-form

And if the presence of divisions means that one’s rule of faith is in the wrong form, couldn’t we say that the Magisterium and Tradition are also in the wrong form, since many Catholics are also confused about statements from their own Magisterium, and since there are surely divisions within the Catholic Church, as well?  If disagreements are a problem for the Protestant rule of faith, then why would they not also be a problem for the Catholic rule of faith?  

Concerning disagreements and squabbles in the church, it is interesting that when Catholics argue amongst themselves, they’ll call it “freedom to interpret.”  But when they find disagreements in Protestantism, they’ll call it “divisions.”  

For more on Sola Scriptura and divisions, see this article:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/12/sola-scriptura-and-divisions.html

Now, of course church leaders do have a role in teaching, interpreting and expounding on Scripture, but the members also have a responsibility.  They are also expected to grow into maturity.  God does not expect us to stay dependent on the leaders for everything.  We shouldn’t expect them to do all the doctrinal studying, and then spoon-feed the rest of us like babies for the rest of our lives.  If the church leaders / Magisterium are teaching their members to be dependent on THEM (the leaders), then those leaders are NOT fulfilling their biblical responsibility to equip the saints (Ephesians 4:11-15).

God expects all of us to study and learn to “rightly divide the Word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  Must a church member just give up and turn all responsibility over to some (supposedly) infallible leader(s) just because a certain passage is hard to understand?  No, he should continue to prayerfully study and learn. We all need help interpreting now and then, but we have no biblical reason to believe in an infallible human leader (or organization) who must interpret for us.  

Again, God expects His children to hear, read, study and understand the Scriptures.  There are many, many examples of the common people being expected to understand Jesus’ words.  Here are just a few:

• People in general (Luke 20:17)

• People in the synagogue (Luke 4:21; Acts 17:2, 11)

• The public (John 7:38)

• The multitude (Matt. 15:10; Mark 7:14, 16; John 7:42)

• The five lost brothers of the rich man (Luke 16:27-29)

• The Reader of Scripture (Matt. 24:15; John 19:24, 28, 36, 37; Revelation 1:3)

• The local Christian churches who received letters / epistles from the Apostle Paul (e.g., the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, etc.)

• “Whosoever” and “He that has ears to hear”-- used many times in the gospels and Revelation (e.g., Matthew 7:24; Luke 6:47; Mark 4:9; Luke 14:35; John 5:24; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).  When Jesus said, “Whosoever…”, He didn’t mean “only the leaders.”

Once again, all these were expected to heed the words of Scripture.  They were held accountable to know and understand Jesus’ words.  There will be no one on Judgment Day who will be able to say, “But God, there are so many disagreements out there about the Bible… it just wasn’t quite clear enough, so I trusted in the Magisterium.”  No, every single person will be accountable.  And it will be that same Word that will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).  No one can escape that accountability. 

It is foolish to compare Scripture to a lifeless, disorganized “pile of bricks.”  The author of Hebrews tells us that the Word of God is “quick [living] and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword…” (Hebrews 4:12), and the apostle Paul calls it “God-breathed,” and a source that equips one for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).   Jesus Christ tells us:

•   “My words shall not pass away…” (Matthew 24:35)

•  “He that rejecteth Me and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:48)

• “… he that heareth My word… hath everlasting life…” (John 5:24)

• “But if ye believe not his [Moses’] writings, how shall ye believe My words?” (John 5:47)

• “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

Hardly the language of an “insufficient” rule of faith.  The essence of these words of Jesus gets clouded and choked out by the concept of “material sufficiency.”  This is ample reason to reject it.

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 5)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

The following specific objection against Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) is also fairly common among Catholic apologists:

ARGUMENT #5 – THE PHRASE “EVERY GOOD WORK” IN 2 TIMOTHY 3:17 DOESN’T PROVE SUFFICIENCY.  THERE ARE OTHER THINGS PROFITABLE FOR “EVERY GOOD WORK,” NOT JUST SCRIPTURE.  FOR EXAMPLE, JAMES 1:4 SAYS THAT PATIENCE / PERSEVERANCE WILL EQUIP A PERSON FOR EVERY GOOD WORK, MAKING US “PERFECT AND ENTIRE, LACKING NOTHING.”  SO, ACCORDING TO PROTESTANT LOGIC, WOULDN’T THAT MEAN THAT PERSEVERANCE WOULD ALSO BE SUFFICIENT, AS A RULE OF FAITH?

This is just a variation of the “proves too much” argument (as in Part 4).  But this argument fails also, as we will soon see.

Those who are against Sola Scriptura (Catholics and others) will also point to verses like:

“If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.” (2 Timothy 2:21)

They’ll say, “You see!  Here Paul is saying that avoiding certain things will make you prepared for every good work!  So it’s not just Scripture that is sufficient.”

But there is a major difference between verses like these and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.  And that difference is CONTEXT.  The context of 2 Timothy 3 is about a God-breathed Rule of Faith that we can turn to in times of trouble and spiritual deception.  Paul, knowing that he would soon be killed for his faith (4:6), is giving Timothy critical information before his departure, and he wanted to leave no doubt as to where to turn in the troubling days that surely lay ahead.  The Holy Spirit is pointing to a time of great apostasy (i.e., falling away from the faith), emphasizing the approaching deception in the church (3:13), growing worse and worse.  So, Paul is describing to Timothy the purpose and nature of the one Source he could count on after he’s gone… that which is inspired by God… Sacred Scripture.  While this passage is establishing an infallible Rule of Faith, verses like James 1:4 and 2 Timothy 2:21 are not.  

Catholics are confusing Paul’s pointing to the infallible guide itself (in 2 Timothy 3) with the application of principles within the guide in these other passages.  In other words, 2 Timothy 3 is saying, “This is the Ultimate Standard, the Rule of Faith,” and the other passages are saying, “Here’s how to apply it.”  Two different contexts.

But what if someone wants to argue that these other verses are also in the context of a rule of faith?  What then?  Remember, the Catholic claims that his rule of faith is a “three-legged stool,” that is, Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.  But does any Catholic want to add “perseverance” (James 1:4) or “purging oneself” (2 Timothy 2:21) as a fourth leg to his three-legged stool?   If those contexts really are about a rule of faith, as some may claim, then Catholics would necessarily have to add these things to their own rule of faith.  And this addition would have to mean that the Catholic’s own rule of faith (the “three-legged stool”) is not sufficient.

Either way, this argument doesn’t hold water.

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 4)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

Today, we will address another common objection to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”):

ARGUMENT #4 – IF 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17 PROVES THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE, IT WOULD PROVE TOO MUCH, BECAUSE WHEN PAUL MENTIONS SCRIPTURE, HE WAS SPEAKING OF THE ONLY SCRIPTURE THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME:  THE OLD TESTAMENT.  SO, IF SOLA SCRIPTURA APPLIES HERE, WOULDN’T WE HAVE TO SAY THAT THE *OLD TESTAMENT* IS ALL WE NEED AS A RULE OF FAITH?  AND WOULDN’T THAT MEAN THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT IS *UNNECESSARY*?

The premise in this argument is that Paul could only have been talking about the Old Testament.  While it is true that only part of the New Testament was available when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, this argument is using very poor logic.  In the context of this passage, Paul is describing the nature and purpose of “ALL Scripture,” not “all-Scripture-given-to-us-up-until-this-point-in-time.”

This is like someone saying, “All birds have wings.”  But this would not mean that only birds existing UP TO THIS POINT have wings, and it is not saying that birds that hatch in the future will not have wings.  It’s simply saying that it is characteristic of ALL birds to have wings.

For an example that’s closer to home, it is like a Catholic saying, “All infallible / ‘ex-cathedra’ statements of the Catholic Church are true.”  Would any Catholic think that this means that ONLY the ones proclaimed UP TO THIS POINT are true, and that future ones may be FALSE?  No, he would argue that “all” means all.

So when the Apostle Paul said “All Scripture…”, he meant All Scripture, past, present and future (from his perspective).  Is not the New Testament also considered Scripture?  Isn’t it part of the whole?  Absolutely.  No true Christian would deny the inspiration of the New Testament. 

There is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul had only the Old Testament in mind, since he was also addressing the needs of the church of the future, as well (3:1, 13).  When Paul said, “All Scripture,” there is no reason to think he meant otherwise, or to limit his description of the sacred writings to only what was available at that time.

Since the Bible equips us for EVERY GOOD WORK, the problem is not “…IF it would be sufficient, it would prove too much…”  No, the point is that the whole of Scripture IS INDEED SUFFICIENT as the only infallible Rule of Faith for the church today, but Catholic teaching doesn’t line up with this … that’s the problem.  They are using a faulty premise in verse 16 which distorts the conclusion and true meaning of verse 17.

So, this is an illogical and absurd objection that falls flat, since it is just another in a long line of weak attempts to deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.