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).
Russell, your arguments are false. Let's face it, you did not address canon issues because they are too complicated for you to deal with.
ReplyDeleteGreetings "Russell",
ReplyDeleteApparently, you missed the four links in this article addressing canon issues. Furthermore, it is interesting that you accuse me of not dealing with something, when you dealt with absolutely nothing in your comment, but simply made an assertion. ANYONE can say, "Your arguments are false" without bringing a shred of proof.
I answered a number of your claims over here: https://douglasbeaumont.com/2024/01/04/why-catholics-dont-have-an-infallible-bible-commentary/
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you give the impression that you are Douglas Beaumont by saying, “I answered a number of your claims over here…” Are you indeed Douglas Beaumont or are you just linking to his article?
Secondly, the article above had nothing whatsoever to do with an “infallible Bible commentary.”
Third, exactly which of my claims in the article are you claiming to have answered?
Yes, I am. I addressed your claims in my video. I linked to your post titled "Private Interpretation" (published in 2014) as an example of fallacious Protestant reasoning about the situation.
DeleteHello Douglas,
DeleteI went to the link you posted and watched the video, but I still don’t see exactly what it is that you have refuted in my articles. What exactly is the “fallacious Protestant reasoning” that I used?
Concerning the need for an infallible commentary……. Now, I would agree with you that it would be extremely impractical for anyone to try and produce such an infallible commentary. But that’s not the point. Protestants only ask why the Catholic Church doesn’t compile such a commentary because of the Catholic Church’s exaggerated claims (of infallible interpretations). If you guys want to make such an incredible claim (that is, that we Protestants don’t have the level of certainty that Catholics do), then you should be able to back it up and show how your interpretations are indeed infallible.
One of your arguments is, “Well, at least the Catholic Church CLAIMS to have some infallible interpretations, as opposed to you Protestants who don’t even have THAT!” Douglas, that is an absurdly weak argument. Simply making an exaggerated claim is easy. Anyone can do that. But I could turn it around and say, “At least Protestants have enough honesty to admit that nowhere in the New Testament are we guaranteed to have infallible interpreters of Scripture in the post-apostolic church.”
Furthermore, to say that infallibility is actually some sort of “negative charism” is simply back-pedaling and is just muddying the water. To say that when exercising “infallible interpretation” the Catholic Church is simply telling us what a particular passage DOESN’T mean, rather than what it DOES mean. But that’s ridiculous, since we could suggest a thousand things that a particular verse DOESN’T mean. That’s no help at all. I believe that using this “negative charism” argument is just the Catholic Church doing damage control to soften their obviously exaggerated claims. Again, back-pedaling.
You mentioned that the Catholic Church doesn’t have to have every Bible verse infallibly interpreted and that all you need is “orthodoxy.” But how do you know that your “orthodoxy” is correct if it’s not infallibly interpreted? Remember, it is Catholics who are the ones that claim infallibility and mock Protestants for not having infallible certainty. Codifying theology (through the Catechism or “orthodox” reference sources) does not provide “infallible” interpretations, as the Church claims to have.
Douglas, I also think that it is quite disingenuous for you to say, “So the best they [Protestants] ever can do are the best fallible interpretations that they can come up with.”
But Catholics are indeed “in the same boat” as Protestants when it comes to Bible interpretation. We ALL have to use our fallible minds and our fallible interpretations of infallible Scripture to find truth. There is no way around it.
Your assertion that the video failed to expose a specific instance of “fallacious Protestant reasoning” reveals, at its core, a misunderstanding of the issue in question. The purpose of the critique was not to dissect each article line by line but to highlight a broader epistemological discrepancy: namely, the reliance on self-admitted fallibility as a virtue. While you seem to think that a mere admission of interpretative limits serves as an adequate defense, this stance simply shirks the responsibility of articulating a positive criterion for doctrinal certainty. One cannot help but notice that such an approach appears less a rigorous engagement with Scripture and more a convenient evasion of accountable exegesis.
DeleteRegarding the contention over the necessity—or rather, the impossibility—of compiling what you term an “infallible commentary,” your position is equally perplexing. To suggest that the Protestant refusal to adopt the Catholic claim to infallibility is a charitable acknowledgment of human imperfection rather than a substantive critique of epistemic overreach demonstrates a remarkably quaint grasp of theological methodology. It is not an admission of weakness but a principled stance that prizes honest fallibility over boastful dogmatism. The demand for infallibility, as posited by your interlocutors, rests on the dubious assumption that historical endurance or institutional authority inherently confers absolute doctrinal precision. a claim that, quite frankly, invites ridicule when it fails to offer demonstrable proofs of infallible methodology.
Your invocation of the “negative charism” concept is symptomatic of an intellectual retreat rather than a robust argument. To dismiss the Catholic method of interpretation as merely telling us what a passage does not mean is to indulge in the kind of reductionist thinking that undermines any serious doctrinal dialogue. If one were to catalog every thing a scriptural text might possibly not signify, one would quickly descend into an endless litany of negatives that do little to clarify truth. This argument, therefore, smacks of a superficial remedy—an afterthought meant to deflect rather than engage with the nuanced challenges of scriptural exegesis.
Finally, your contention that both Protestants and Catholics are “in the same boat” regarding the fallibility of human interpretation is a rather oversimplified generalization. While it is true that all human faculties are inherently limited, the critical difference lies in the nature of how each tradition approaches truth claims. The Protestant stance, openly admitting to interpretative limitations, is not a concession to error but an invitation to ongoing inquiry and correction. In contrast, the Catholic insistence on institutional infallibility arguably erects a barrier to continuous critical reassessment, thereby stifling intellectual humility and the evolution of doctrinal understanding.
LOLOL! Russell lost the argument. He got burned LOLOLO!
DeleteHello Douglas,
DeleteOk, let’s take a step back, start over and clear the air.
I wrote an article on the topic of “private interpretation” back in 2014. You posted no comment (as far as I can tell) on that particular article. [Note: I don’t mind anyone posting a comment on an old article, but I encourage everyone’s comments to actually relate to the material that is in the article in which it is posted].
Eleven years later, you then post a comment on this article (above) which I wrote last month (March, 2025), which happens to be on “Sola Scriptura” (different topic). And here (March 9 and 11, just above), you comment that you answered (on a video you made) a number of “fallacious Protestant reasoning” claims that I made in the 2014 article. The topic of your video was “Why Don’t Catholics Have An infallible Bible Commentary?” (yet another topic). So, we have three different topics going on, which muddies the water, and you claim that your video addressed fallacious claims I made in the 2014 article. But I see nothing in the video that refutes anything I said in that article.
I simply asked (March 10, above) which claims are you talking about? And in your most recent post (March 29, above), you can’t seem to answer my simple question and you begin to pontificate about some “broader epistemological discrepancy.”
Douglas, I have to say, you used a lot of big words and flowery language (as though you are trying to impress someone), but you had nothing of substance to say. I stand by every word I said in these articles and I am not swayed by your condescending rhetoric.
I firmly stand by what I said earlier: Catholics and Protestants are indeed in the same boat, i.e., we all have to use our fallible understanding and our fallible reasoning to interpret our sources, whether Scripture, tradition, the fathers, or the teaching of the “Magisterium.” Whether you recognize it or not, this is an immutable truth. And Catholics need to stop pretending that they have infallible interpretations. If you disagree, prove it with Scripture, the one thing we hold in common.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete