SOLA SCRIPTURA AND THE “CONSTITUTION” ARGUMENT

As our readers may already know, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) is a key part of many Protestants’ world view.  Since Catholics believe in an inspired “Magisterium” and an inspired “Sacred Tradition,” both (supposedly) being on equal footing with Scripture, they have come up with a number of arguments against the Bible Alone concept.  One of those is the “Constitution” argument.

The Constitution argument goes something like this:

“Sola Scriptura doesn’t work because, in this view, each person interprets the Bible for himself, causing all sorts of disagreements and confusion.  You Protestants would never allow the interpretation of an important document like the Constitution of the United States of America to be subject to the whims of any and every citizen, would you?  There would be no unity.  This would only lead to chaos!  So why would you allow this kind of abuse to happen to an even greater document, like the Bible?”

   

Ok, first of all, no true Sola Scriptura person believes that the Bible should ever be subject to the “whims” of anyone reading it.  If you truly want to get something out of it, the Bible cannot be read flippantly or haphazardly.  It should be studied carefully and read with a humble, prayerful and reverent attitude (Isaiah 66:2; 2 Timothy 2:15).  It is not a toy to play with, or a book you can mold into anything you desire.  This is a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura.

Furthermore, there are basic hermeneutical principles involved in Bible interpretation on which we pretty much all agree.  Hermeneutics is the science of Bible interpretation.  Certain rules must be followed when reading Scripture, for example, observing the context of a passage (both immediate and overall), historical perspective, genre, grammar, and the writer’s intent.  So again, the Bible cannot be interpreted “just any way you feel like it,” as those using the Constitution argument would accuse us.

Second, Catholics using the Constitution argument assume that there will be ONE human head over everyone in the church, just as there is one person (or body of persons) over the United States.  But the Bible doesn’t say this about the church.  The Constitution of the United States of America was meant to have a very specific group of elected officials to determine / interpret the exact meaning of the Constitution.  But this concept of one person being over the church is absent from the Bible.  So, this is not an accurate premise to start with, and thus, not a valid comparison.

When it comes to law and order (as in the Constitution), there must be a final human arbiter (to at least make people behave “on the outside”), but Scripture is able to deal with the heart and make people behave “on the inside,” as well.  The law deals with the external behavior, but Scripture deals with the conscience.  The judge’s responsibility is interpreting the Constitution for lawmakers.  But God, the Creator, is able to reveal His truth (Scripture) even to babes, i.e., to the simple, humble and “unlearned” (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21). 

Third, concerning unity, remember that unity is not the Constitution’s nor the Bible’s sole reason for existence, nor its greatest emphasis.  Is unity more important than truth?  Is unity greater than righteousness?  Of course not.  Unity is indeed important, but that unity has to be built upon something greater than itself.  But listening to Catholics attacking Sola Scriptura, one would swear that unity has to be the highest of all virtues, the greatest good, and the solution to mankind’s problems.  We have to remember that any cult or unorthodox group can have unity, but God wants us to have UNITY IN THE TRUTH OF HIS WORD (John 17:17; Ephesians 4:11-14).  In the Bible, God puts far more emphasis on truth and sound doctrine than He does on unity.  Without truth and sound doctrine, unity is meaningless.

No doubt, Catholics will say, “But we do have truth and sound doctrine.  In fact, it is only the Catholic Church who has the ‘fullness of the truth’ (CCC #819).”

But not only does the Catholic Church not have the sound doctrine and “fullness of truth” that it claims to have (as this blog and many other websites attest), but it doesn’t even have the level of unity that it claims for itself.  See here:

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

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/02/there-aremany-important-choices-that-we.html#comment-form

Interestingly, the Catholic Church’s idea of “unity” also includes union with Protestants (for example, the dangerous and unbiblical “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document) and also union with pagan and demonic world religions, as well.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/08/cant-we-all-just-get-along-ecumenical.html

We are here warning everyone that this same false unity will also be used by the “man of sin,” the “son of perdition” (2 Thessalonians 2:3), also known as the antichrist, to form his ungodly one-world church (Revelation 13:7-8, 12).  We can only hope and pray that this thought is just as disturbing to others as it is to us.  You see, this craving for unity at any cost is very dangerous.

Conclusion

Having a single “authoritative” human authority over the church does not guarantee truth, just as a single ultimate authority over the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee that the right thing will be done.  An ultimate human authority can become corrupt.  This same “ultimate authority” over the Constitution has produced evil things like the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion, which regrettably, became the law of the land.  In the same way, having a person (pope) over the entire church does not guarantee truth or righteousness, either. 
 
But the Catholic will say, “But, unlike the judges who interpret the Constitution, the pope is infallible!”  Then why try to use the Constitution argument in the first place, since it is a false analogy?  So, now they must admit that the Constitution argument is an invalid “apples and oranges” comparison, and the resulting mismatch negates this whole argument.

So, the bottom line on this unity issue is this - you can either:

1) Accept the fact that there are always going to be differences / disagreements in Bible interpretation, (yet with imperfect, but acceptable, levels of unity in different places) or 

2) You can default and let someone else “infallibly” decide what Scripture says, like a church whose “unity” is an all-inclusive tolerance for false doctrine, or a dictator-type church with its forced unity.

This second type of “unity” does not work, and neither does the “Constitution” argument.

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.

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND DIVISIONS

Sola Scriptura (Latin for “Bible Alone”) is the teaching that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith for the church today (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Catholics reject this teaching for several reasons, but this particular article will address only one of those Catholic objections. That tired, overused, but ever-so-popular Catholic argument is this: Sola Scriptura is “unworkable” as a rule of faith because it uses “private interpretation,” and this causes divisions / arguments / disagreements in Protestantism. But is this sound reasoning? Is this a fair argument?

Well, it is no secret that there are many divisions within Protestantism. Some estimate that there are 25,000 different denominations, some 30,000, others 33,000, etc., etc. One popular Catholic apologist claims that there may even be MILLIONS of Protestant denominations. While we believe that all of these numbers are wildly exaggerated, the focus of this article will not be on how many denominations there really are, nor on who has “more unity.” The focus is on the hypocrisy of Catholics who make the claim that Sola Scriptura is false because of divisions within Protestantism, while knowing that they, too, have divisions.

The Catholic Church claims to be “one” (i.e., unified), yet there are also many divisions / arguments / disagreements within its own ranks. This fact is undeniable. A little time spent searching on the internet will demonstrate that point. And some of these disagreements are on major, essential issues… even between higher officials in the Church. Even some of the early church fathers had disagreements with each other. There have been disagreements on all levels in the Catholic Church, from amateur lay apologists, to priests, bishops, cardinals and popes. Some modern points of disagreement between Catholics include the issue of contraception, the significance and effects of Vatican II, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Traditionalists, Novus Ordo (New Mass), evolution, Charismatic Catholics, and the concept of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (Latin for “no salvation outside the [Catholic] Church”) … to name just a few.

So, if Sola Scriptura is disqualified as a rule of faith because Protestants have divisions, then the Catholic Magisterium must also be disqualified. If “Bible Alone” is negated due to the existence of disagreements, then so is Catholic Tradition. If divisions cancel out one rule of faith, they cancel out all of them, making this Catholic argument self-refuting. This is certainly a double standard.

Just because you may not have “physical” divisions (denominations with separate names) doesn’t mean you don’t have divisions. And if Sola Scriptura is the cause of disagreements, then how is it that YOU have them, also? Apparently, the Catholic rule of faith is not as “clear” as many Catholics claim it to be.

Someone may respond that Catholic divisions simply stem from those who disagree with the Church’s clear and official teaching and are thus actually heretics, and not true Catholics; therefore they “don’t count” when comparing disagreements.

But, first of all, Protestants could use this same argument and say that Protestant divisions also occur because of disobedience to the Bible’s clear teaching, and that those who disagree with us are not true Sola Scriptura believers, either.

Secondly, if these Catholic “heretics” are never excommunicated, and they continue to attend and participate in Catholic services, give financially to the Catholic Church, partake of the sacraments, and continue to identify with the Church, then it certainly does not appear that the Church, herself, considers them “heretics,” does it?

So, the “heretic” argument doesn’t prove anything, nor does it erase the fact that Catholicism has its divisions.

Catholics may say, “But we have a leader (the pope) who can decide infallibly for us when disagreements arise.”

And how many times have popes “infallibly” decided anything? It is an extremely rare event. But this just causes more confusion, because Catholics can’t even know exactly how many times this has happened in history. There is no “official” list of infallible statements, so an appeal to this supposed infallibility does little or nothing to help this Catholic argument.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, disagreements in interpretation are inevitable in this life; it’s something we just have to learn to live with. Remember, there were many who saw Jesus Christ, Himself, face to face, and they still disagreed among themselves on what He taught. Does this mean that Jesus’ teachings were also “unworkable”? Of course not. The ABUSE of a sufficient rule of faith does not void that rule of faith.

Dear Catholic friends, I am not trying to justify Protestant divisions, but I’m simply challenging the idea that disagreements cause a problem for the Protestant rule of faith, but not for the Catholic rule of faith. This idea is inconsistent on the part of Catholics.

Yes, of course Jesus wants Christians to have unity in the truth (John 17:11, 21-23), and we should always strive for it, yet we ALL fall short… some of us more than others. But, please don’t pretend you have no divisions in Catholicism, or that your rule of faith is somehow exempt when you use the “disagreements nullify Sola Scriptura” argument.

Catholics lose credibility each time this argument is used. So, let’s put this faulty and deceptive argument to rest, once and for all.