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.

DID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GIVE US THE BIBLE?

You will hear it often when Catholics and Protestants are discussing their faith. The Protestant quotes a Scripture verse and points to the fact that the Bible is the final authority on faith and morals. But the Catholic will often say something like, “But without the Catholic Church’s Tradition, you Protestants would not have a Bible. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible, therefore you should submit to our Church.” Quite a statement… but is this really true?

Some Questions

Before answering him, we should start off by asking the Catholic a couple of important questions. First, we should ask, “What do you mean by saying the Catholic Church ‘gave us the Bible’?” Is he suggesting that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible? If so, this certainly cannot be the case, since the Old Testament was written long before the Catholic Church existed. Neither can they claim to have written the New Testament, since that was written by the apostles and their close associates. And the apostles knew nothing of those teachings which are uniquely Catholic.

What Catholics generally mean when they say that their Church gave us the Bible is that the Catholic Church, through certain councils, was responsible for revealing to us the “canon” of the Bible, i.e., which books are inspired by God and actually belong in the Bible.

If this is indeed what they mean, then we need to ask him our second question: “When did this happen?” And they will usually say that the canon was finally settled at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.), and it was later restated / reaffirmed at the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.).

This sounds really nice, but there are a number of problems with their claims.

Local, Not Ecumenical

Point #1 - The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were local or “provincial” councils (synods), and they could not “finally settle” the canon or any other issue that affected all the churches. They were not “ecumenical” councils, because their rulings were not binding on the whole church. The reason that this is a problem is because Catholics often stress the idea that we really “need” infallible certainty on the canon. But according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the canon of Scripture was not “infallibly” declared until the Council of Trent did so in 1546:

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill, Copyright 1967, Volume 3, “Canon, Biblical”, p. 29)

Likewise, the online “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”) says:

“The Tridentine decrees [i.e., from the Council of Trent] from which the above list [of books] is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”

So, according to this, the church existed for over 1500 years without an infallibly-pronounced canon. Why is this, if “infallible certainty” is so important?

For more on infallible certainty and the canon, see our article here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html

Wrong Canon

Point #2 - To make matters worse for Catholics, the canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage does not match the canon which was given by the Council of Trent. This is because the canon of Hippo and Carthage comes from the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek – written sometime between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C.), while the Council of Trent specifically mentions using the canon of the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin translation – written 382-405 A.D.):

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Fourth Session) [Emphasis added]

The problem is that both canons contain a book called 1 Esdras, but the earlier 1 Esdras is different from the one at the Council of Trent. How do we know this? According to a chart in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Septuagint’s 1 Esdras is equivalent to the Vulgate’s 3 Esdras. And it specifically says, “The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, Volume II, Bible, III, pp. 396-397) [Emphasis added]

So, Trent declared 3 Esdras in the Vulgate [1 Esdras of the Septuagint] to be uncanonical (not belonging in the Bible), and it was therefore removed from the canon. So, if this book was “removed” from the canon by Trent, it must have been there in the first place sometime earlier. And that is because it was there from the earlier councils, i.e., Hippo, Carthage, etc. So, by the Catholic Church’s own admission, the earlier canon was different from Trent’s, because it had an extra book. So the idea that Trent accepted and simply reaffirmed the earlier councils’ canon is wrong.

To confirm this with another Catholic source:

“Except for Jerome’s OT from the Hebrew, all other Lat renderings of the OT and NT were made from the Greek.” (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999, page 1100)

The irony in all this is that according to the quote from Trent above, rather than affirming, this ecumenical council actually condemns with anathema the Councils of Carthage and Hippo because their canon did not match the Vulgate’s.

So, what if the Catholic says, “Ok, so the Catholic church gave us the Bible (i.e., the correct canon) at Trent instead of Carthage and Hippo, so what?” But, taking 1500 years to recognize the canon is not very reassuring, especially for a Church who insists on the need for infallible certainty. It certainly seems that Catholic “Tradition” failed to protect the early canon from error in this case.

There are a number of church historians / scholars and other sources who also point out this difference between the Septuagint’s canon and the canon of the Vulgate. See the details in this very informative article by William Webster:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/sippocanon.html

The Apocrypha

Point #3 – The Protestant Bible contains 66 Books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New). The Bible that the Catholic Church claims to have given us contains 7 more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible (and some additional verses in the books of Daniel and Esther).

These 7 extra books Catholics call the “Deuterocanonical” books. Protestants usually refer to them as the “Apocrypha,” and they do not consider them to be inspired, but Catholics do. But there are some problems with these books that we will deal with only briefly:

1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament.

2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the “inspiration” of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?

3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures.

4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical.

Even the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the church fathers of the Middle Ages and their attitude toward the Apocrypha:

“Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”)

For much more information on the Apocrypha, see the William Webster link that we mentioned above.

Teachings Not Biblical

Point #4 - If the Catholic Church really did give us the Bible, then why do so many of its teachings either contradict the Scriptures, or cannot be found within its pages (e.g., doctrines like confession to a priest, Mary’s sinless birth and life, Mary’s Assumption into Heaven, indulgences, Purgatory, the Treasury of Merit, the office of pope, praying to saints, etc., etc.)? Interestingly, we find none of these in the Bible they claim to have given us.

Used by God

Point #5 - When it comes to spiritual deception the most dangerous lies are the ones that contain a certain amount of truth mixed in. And that is the case here. The “certain amount of truth mixed in” is that the Catholic Church was used, to some extent, in preserving and copying the Bible. But the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible.” GOD did. It is HIS Word given to His people… the Old Testament given through the Jewish prophets, and the New Testament given through the Apostles and their close associates. The universal church of the New Testament just recognized the inspired Scriptures… it did not create or establish them. It was simply used by God in identifying the canon.

But apparently, some Catholics believe that if God uses someone, then we must submit to them.” But this does not logically or necessarily follow because God can use anybody or anything, good or bad, to accomplish His will. But this only proves that God is sovereign. God has used a whale (Jonah 1:17), a rooster (Matthew 26:74-75), and even a donkey (Numbers 22:22-34) to do His will, but that doesn’t mean that we are to submit to whales, roosters or donkeys, does it?

God can also use evil men to prophesy (John 11:49-52), but are we expected to yield to them? Obviously not. God can even use the devil to accomplish His will (Job 1:6-12; 42:10), but does this mean that we should be obedient to Satan? Again, the point is, just because God has USED a person or group in some way to bring about His will, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we must now submit to them. We should only submit to a person or church whose teachings are biblical.

This same misguided reasoning would also require us to submit to Judaism, the religion of the Jews (including any of its un-Christian traditions), since God used the Jews to write and preserve three-fourths of the Bible which we have today (the Old Testament). After all, it was to the Jews that the oracles of God were first given (Romans 3:2). In light of this, the Jews would have more right to claim to have “given us the Bible” than the Catholic Church has.

So Where Did it Come From?

Many Catholics act as though there was nothing but utter confusion over the canon in the early church and the multitudes were desperate to find someone, an infallible authority, who could “determine” the canon for them. Then the Catholic Church stepped in with their councils and saved the day… or at least that’s what many Catholics would like us to believe. But it was not so.

Ok, so where did we get the Bible from, if it wasn’t from the Catholic Church?

Demanding an answer to questions like “Who gave us the Bible?” is actually misleading. There is no one person or group that is responsible for giving us the Bible. Just as the books of the Old Testament were, little by little, accumulated over the years by God’s people who recognized His Spirit moving in His prophets (and eventually writing it down)… it was the same with the apostles and the New Testament. It was a gradual process with many believers involved over time. And just as the Jews recognized Old Testament Scripture without an infallible authority, it was the same with the early Christians.

Although the councils did help, to a certain extent, to crystallize the canon in the minds of the early Christians, these councils, for the most part, merely affirmed the books that were already widely accepted. They were simply attempting to make it “official.”

Even though there were some doubts concerning a few of the books that would eventually end up in the canon, there was, collectively, a general consensus among Christians on most of the books. Only a few of them were actually disputed.

It is said that virtually the whole New Testament could be reproduced simply from the writings of the Ante-Nicene church fathers (those who lived before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.). So, the early church was already familiar with the canon of Scripture at this time.

In all fairness, the Catholic Church (i.e., the Church of Rome) did have a role in preserving and copying the Scriptures, as we mentioned earlier. But this doesn’t mean that “the Bible comes from them.”

Conclusion

The implications of all this are sobering and far-reaching. When Catholics say that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, they are in effect saying that this Church (along with its “Tradition”) is the final authority, and that we must submit to them. They are implying that the Bible gets its authority from that Church and only they have the authority to properly interpret it. But this is certainly not true. The universal church recognized the inspired writings. However, the Scriptures are not “church-breathed,” but God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Simply recognizing something (the canon) is not the same thing as being responsible for its existence. The Bible no more owes its existence to the Catholic Church than gravity owes its existence to Sir Isaac Newton.

The idea of the Catholic Church giving the Bible to the world is yet another boastful (but empty) claim coming from the Catholic side. One has to wonder… how many of the Catholic Church’s claims need to be exposed as false, before the “lay Catholic” in the pew will see the light? How many exaggerated claims from his leaders must he endure before he breaks free of the Catholic Church’s shackles? Hopefully, very few.

THE CANON AND “INFALLIBLE CERTAINTY”

One of the arguments that Catholics will use against the Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura (“Scripture Alone”) is the “canon” argument. The “canon” refers to the list of inspired books that belong in the Bible. The Catholic argument is that Protestants can’t even know which books belong in the Bible without the help of the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church is the one that “infallibly determined” which books go into it. Without this guarantee, Protestants can’t be sure that they have the correct canon. At least, that’s what Catholics believe.

Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox all have a different canon, but the purpose of this article is not to address the precise books that fall into this list, but rather, whether or not a person can know infallibly (i.e., without the possibility of error) which books make up this list. Many Catholics seem to think that we can have “infallible certainty” on this, and in fact, insist that we must have this level of certainty. One Catholic source says:

"Only the Church, the infallible bearer of tradition, can furnish us invincible certainty as to the number of the Divinely inspired books of both the Old and the New Testament." (Online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Scripture”)

Concerning the canon, and how we know which books are inspired, we all realize that no one alive today had anything to do with the formation of the canon, and therefore, we are dependent on others for this information. And, of course, we get this information from the writings of the early church. Now, the church did not “determine” the canon… the canon was “determined” by God. The early church fathers simply “recognized” the inspired books. But it doesn’t mean that recognizing the inspired books made those fathers infallible, nor that they needed to be infallible in order to recognize those books. Catholics just assume that the church is infallible, when there is no biblical evidence for it. (Another topic for another day)

But the truth is, we are all fallible creatures with fallible minds and hearts, and we all make fallible decisions. No matter what we end up choosing, or who we end up trusting, we all start out with fallibility… including the final authority(ies) that we choose to follow.

But we have to ask, how did the Old Testament saints know that Deuteronomy or Isaiah or Malachi were inspired books, when they didn’t have the Catholic Church there to tell them? Just like the fathers who recognized the books of the New Testament, they too, had to use their discernment, evaluate the available evidence, and reason with their fallible minds to come to a conclusion on their canon. But God does give us sufficient certainty on the canon today, just as He did for the Old Testament believers then. Once again, we don’t need to be infallible to recognize “the Infallible,” or else none of us would ever be able to recognize God and His dealings with us.

We so often see Catholics presenting a false dilemma concerning the canon: They say that either,

1) the early church fathers must have INFALLIBLY chosen the right books, or
2) they must have been WRONG in their choices

But these two are not the only options. The truth can be found somewhere in between those two extremes. For example, it is certainly possible to be fallible, yet correct. But I don’t believe that any human can have infallible certainty on the canon (or on anything else, for that matter). Infallible certainty is strictly God’s domain. But again, that doesn’t mean that He won’t give us sufficient certainty about the things of God.

Now, let us pose this important question: Is it mandatory for EVERY believer to have INFALLIBLE certainty on the FULL canon in order to be saved and to live for God?

If the answer is yes, then wouldn’t we have to say that out of the multitudes of godly people who lived before the fourth century, that not one was saved, or not one could live for God, until after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo (which supposedly settled the canon issue)?

If the answer to the above question is no, then why do Catholics put so much emphasis on INFALLIBLE certainty of the canon in the first place?

Actually, according to another Catholic Source, the first time that the canon of Scripture was infallibly declared was at the Council of Trent (1546):

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, page 29, Copyright 1967; Under “Canon, Biblical”)

The online “New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia” (Under “Canon of the Old Testament”) also confirms the above source:

“The Tridentine [i.e., from the Council of Trent] decrees from which the above list [of books] is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.”

So, if these Catholic encyclopedias are correct, and if we really do need infallible certainty on the canon of Scripture, we find it strange that the Catholic Church waited for 1500 years before giving an infallible judgment on the canon.

But, Catholics can’t have it both ways. You can’t INSIST that we “really need” infallible certainty on the one hand, and on the other hand, say it’s no big deal that we DIDN’T have it until Trent in 1546. Again, the truth is, “infallible certainty” was not needed then, and is not needed now. If it were, then the Catholic Church has done a very poor job of providing this “certainty” for its members.

Another question is, why does the Catholic insist on the need for infallible certainty on the canon of Scripture for Protestants, when he (the Catholic) can’t have anywhere near this level of certainty on HIS OWN “canon” of Sacred Tradition… since he really doesn’t even know what it is? “Sacred Tradition” is supposedly equal to Scripture and is a critical part of the Catholic’s rule of faith, but can anyone tell us exactly what its contents are? No, they can’t. They always seem to dance around this question, when asked, and seem to purposely use extremely vague definitions for it. What kind of “certainty” (Catechism of the Catholic Church #82) can be derived from such a mysterious and nebulous Tradition? Does the Catholic Church have an official, infallible, and unchanging list of all of its “Sacred Traditions”? No, they don’t. We’re still waiting for a clear and meaningful defintion of “Sacred Tradition” before anyone can ever claim that it is “inspired.”

So, if the Catholic can demand from us an infallible list of the full contents of Scripture, then Protestants can also demand that Catholics provide an infallible list of the full contents of “Sacred Tradition” – so, please show us the list. Otherwise, demanding “infallible certainty” from anyone else, when you, yourself don’t have it, is hypocrisy.

So, the concept of “infallible certainty” on the canon is just another inflated Catholic claim that actually hurts the Catholic Church more than helps it. And furthermore, this canon argument does nothing to disprove “Sola Scriptura.”