THE END OF SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Sola Scriptura – the “Bible Alone” doctrine – is one of the main teachings of the Reformation.  It can be briefly and accurately described in one short sentence: “Scripture is the only infallible source of truth for the post-apostolic church.”  That is, after the apostles died off, there is no more need of new revelation from God.  We have all the infallible truth we need today in the Bible.  (2 Timothy 3:16)

“Infallible” means “unable to make mistakes or be wrong.”  This teaching of “Bible Alone” is loved by some and hated by others, often either fully embraced or completely rejected.  Many Catholics (and others) would love to see the end of Sola Scriptura.  It seems that those who believe in “the Bible plus some other source for infallible guidance” would prefer that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura just die.

Catholic apologist John Martignoni is one of those people and he often openly speaks against this doctrine.  In a recent newsletter of his (Apologetics for the Masses #357), he attempts to tackle a very important and relevant question.  His newsletter can be found here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/480-apologetics-for-the-masses-357-isn-t-that-just-your-opinion

In John’s newsletter, a fellow Catholic named Robert writes in and asks him:

“You constantly argue against the Protestant view because it is strictly their opinion and carries no more weight than my opinion, but can’t the same be said about the claims of the Catholic church being infallible just be your opinion and your interpretation of those verses in the bible?”

Excellent question!  I have often seen John attack Sola Scriptura (and often misrepresent it, by the way), but I have never seen him address this particular question before.  So I was eager to see how he would answer this.

To answer, John Martignoni starts off by presenting three premises.  In a nutshell, they are:

        1) Jesus Christ is God and He is a historical fact

        2) Jesus started a church

        3) The Bible is inspired

Ok, Protestants and Catholics will both agree with these premises. 

But then he says that the idea that “anyone’s opinions or interpretation of Scripture are no more valid than anyone else’s” is only true in Protestantism, and that this “fact” is the Catholic’s “ace in the hole” when discussing theology with a Protestant.  He also calls it the “Achilles heel of Protestantism.”  Then Martignoni says that it all comes down to the question of who wrote the Bible and how do we know we have the right canon? 

Actually, Robert’s question has nothing to do with the canon (list of Bible books) and much more to do with proper interpretation of the Bible texts.  But anyway, let’s address his assumption about who wrote the Bible.

Of course, John’s answer to that question is the Catholic Church, which is supposedly “the Church founded by Jesus Christ.”  He says that for us to trust that the Bible is inspired and without error, we have to trust “someone, somewhere, that we can rely on as being absolutely authoritative and trustworthy.”  I would actually agree with that, and those with such authority were the prophets and apostles, and those very close to the apostles, those who were inspired by God to infallibly write Scripture down (2 Peter 1:20-21).  So John, there’s your answer to the question of who wrote the Bible:  It was GOD who wrote the Bible, through certain temporarily inspired men: Old Testament prophets (Hebrews 1:1), New Testament apostles (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter) and some very close associates of the apostles (e.g., non-apostle Bible authors like Mark, Luke, James and Jude).

  

But John Martignoni goes on to say that we can know for sure that we can trust the Bible only if we have someone who came after the apostles who is “infallible in their decision regarding which books are, and are not, to be considered the inspired, inerrant, Word of God.”  In other words, we can only be sure of the Bible if we have someone today who knows the canon of Scripture infallibly.

See how he unnecessarily brings the canon into the equation?  But this has nothing to do with Robert’s question.

At the beginning of his answer, Martignoni first gives three premises, with which we agree.  But his conclusion is that we can only trust Scripture if an infallible person or persons (the Catholic Church) gives Scripture to us and tells us what it is.  In other words, he is telling us that one has to be infallible to recognize infallible Scripture.  But that’s not true.

An infallible person is not needed to recognize an infallible source (Matthew 27:54).  If he were, a fallible person could NEVER recognize when God (Who is infallible) is speaking to him.  But Martignoni’s view would create an infinite regress like this:

        1) God speaks infallibly to person A. 

        2) Person A (who must be infallible to recognize it) hands down the infallible information to Person B. 

        3) But since infallible information is being passed on, Person B must necessarily be infallible, also… etc., etc.  Thus, producing a never-ending chain of “infallible” people.  But this is ridiculous.

If Martignoni were correct about this, an infallible leadership would be no good to a fallible congregation.  At some point, the fallible MUST meet, and understand, the infallible.  And this is, in fact, exactly what happened in history – infallible Scripture was given to fallible men (the universal church – all true believers worldwide).

John also mentions “logic” a dozen times in this particular newsletter, but ironically his conclusion here is not based on good logic, because his belief that the Catholic Church is infallible does not at all follow from his premises.  Catholics start off with the assumption of the need for an infallible church.  But that is neither logical nor scriptural.

He also claims that his arguments are based on common sense.  We agree that common sense is certainly useful, so why can’t we simply use that common sense up front when interpreting Scripture to start with?

The bottom line is that John Martignoni does not really answer Robert’s question in a satisfactory way.  Robert’s question was basically, “If Protestants can never be sure of their interpretation of Scripture because Protestants are fallible, then shouldn’t we say the same thing about Catholics, since they, too, are fallible?”

The answer to this question is yes, because we are all fallible, and we are all prone to make mistakes.  No one today is infallible, individually or collectively.  Only the Scriptures (God’s word) are infallible (2 Timothy 3:16-17) – that’s why it is called “Sola Scriptura.”

But John’s response to Robert’s question was basically, “We have an infallible Church to interpret for us and Protestants don’t.”

That is not true, but even if that were true, it wouldn’t help Catholics at all.  If the Catholic Church is infallible, they’d have to have another infallible middle-man between the infallible Magisterium and the Catholic in the pew.  But, as we pointed out above, that wouldn’t solve what Catholics see as the “problem.” 

The point is, fallible interpretation of Scripture is not a problem at all, but simply a fact of life.  Again, because every one of us is fallible, and if we want to approach and interpret infallible Scripture, we must use our own fallible reasoning and imperfect understanding to do so.  And that goes for every person on the planet. 

John Martignoni needs to quit pretending that Protestants are “reduced” to using their fallible reasoning to interpret Scripture, but that Catholics are not.  Catholics are not exempt from fallible interpretation, even when it comes to trying to prove the infallibility of their Church.  They appeal to Scripture, but when they do that, they must still first use their fallible reasoning to interpret those Scripture passages that they claim “prove” the Church’s infallibility.  Fallible interpretation is unavoidable.

Again, the infallible must intersect with the fallible somewhere down the line.  There is no need for the existence of infallible people or infallible institutions today in order for “the common man” to understand the Bible (Matthew 7:24; Mark 4:9; Luke 6:47). 

Now, no one is suggesting that we can interpret Scripture just any way we want.  It is possible for someone to carelessly, foolishly, or unreasonably interpret the Bible.  But a fallible interpretation does not automatically mean a WRONG interpretation.  There are basic hermeneutical (interpretation) principles that we use all the time, e.g., context, history, Scripture interpreting Scripture, etc.  Though we are not infallible, God gives us sufficient ability to interpret and understand.

In the newsletter, John Martignoni states that he is not merely expressing his own opinion, but rather, his logic, based on “what the Church founded by Jesus Christ teaches.”  But have the verses that he uses to attack Sola Scriptura been “infallibly interpreted” by the Catholic Church?  No, most of them he generally uses have not.  In fact, there are very, very few verses that have this exalted status. 

But why are there actually so few Bible passages that are supposedly interpreted “infallibly” by the Catholic Church to become dogma?  Why is there such a very tiny percentage interpreted in this way if there is such a need for it?  Shouldn’t the Catholic Church have infallibly interpreted all of the Bible, or at least most of it if infallible interpretation is really that important?  One has to wonder.  See also this related article:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/08/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-8.html

Catholics put down Protestants because of their “lack of certainty” in Bible interpretation, but you see, Catholics don’t really have the certainty that they claim to have, or would like to have.  Their “infallible certainty” is simply a mirage.

So, with all the Catholic apologists attacking the “Bible Alone” doctrine today, is this the end of Sola Scriptura?  Not even close.  The Bible and its teachings are not merely profitable, but they are God-breathed (i.e., God-inspired) and sufficient to equip Christians for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and it will be so until the end of time.

MARTIGNONI AND JAMES 5:19-20

Today, we are briefly addressing some more comments from the world of Catholic apologist, John Martignoni.  He was recently writing to his Bible Christian Society audience, and he said something very interesting.  His comments can be found here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/389-planting-seeds-of-faith-with-your-help

In his comments, Martignoni claims some unique insight concerning a passage in the book of James:

My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

And then Martignoni writes immediately after this:

“Did you catch that?  Most people who read this passage do not stop to think about what it is really saying.  If you do something to bring a sinner back from the error of his way, you will save YOUR soul from death and will cover a multitude of YOUR sins.  What an awesome promise God has given us in Scripture!  Zeal for the souls of others will cover a multitude of our sins and save our soul from death!” (Emphasis in original)

Martignoni acts as though he has discovered some deep revelation that few have ever seen before.  But, at this point, we feel the need to ask Martignoni some questions that he, himself, often asks those with whom he debates.  For example, we would ask him:  John, is your interpretation of this passage of Scripture infallible?  Is the Holy Spirit guiding you when you interpret this?  Or is this your own private interpretation?  Since you have already admitted previously that you are not infallible, then the Holy Spirit might not be guiding you, and you could be wrong, couldn’t you?  And lastly, is your interpretation what the Catholic Church officially teaches?  

We’re pretty sure that this passage has not been infallibly defined by the Catholic Church, nor do we believe that Martignoni’s interpretation is official Catholic teaching.  If anyone claims that it is, then please show us where.

 

These questions from John are not actually a problem for Protestants at all, but we wanted to turn the tables on John, since he very often asks these same things of his opponents when they quote the Bible.  But his own questions come back to haunt him.  Those same questions that he uses in an attempt to frustrate or neutralize Protestants now have the same effect on him.  John seems to think that for any interpretation to carry any weight, it must be infallible.  But he cannot demonstrate that his interpretation is infallible, so (according to his own logic) why should anyone accept John’s interpretation?

We think that John will have to admit that his interpretation of James 5:19-20 is indeed private interpretation, and it is fallible.  And further, it is not official Catholic doctrine.  Although, we will give him credit for admitting that he is not infallible.

As to the actual meaning of the passage above, we’d have to say, sorry, John Martignoni, your interpretation is NOT what the passage is actually saying.  We believe that this passage is easy enough to understand by itself.  But we will try to make it even easier.  For the sake of simplicity and to keep track of things, let’s apply names to both of the characters in this scenario (James 5:19-20).  Let’s call the one who wanders from the truth, Bill.  And we can call the one sharing the gospel, Tom.  Tom is the one who rescues the sinner (Bill) from the error of his way.

Ok, so one of these guys is saved and one is not.  We must understand that Tom is not saving his own soul, since he is already saved - he is not the one who has lost his way.  Otherwise, he wouldn’t be sharing the gospel.  If Tom is not saved, he would not be capable of effectively bringing Bill back from the error of his way.  It would be “the blind leading the blind” (Matthew 15:14; Luke 6:39).  So, no… Tom did not save his own soul by bringing Bill back from error.  “Winning” souls is a job for those who are already “won over.”  So Bill is the one whose soul is saved from death and whose multitude of sins are covered, because HE was the one who strayed.  Pretty straightforward.

Now, of course, God wants Christians to win souls (Proverbs 11:30; Mark 16:15; Jude 23), but engaging in this activity does not save the one who does it.  So, how does one enter into a right relationship with God?  Salvation does not come by dipping a person in water, memorizing certain prayers or Scripture verses, helping your neighbor, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc., etc.  These are all good things for which we can get Heavenly rewards, but they don’t accomplish justification / salvation.  It is only by the humble acceptance of the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ that one is saved, because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).  Justification / salvation is accomplished by simply embracing the truth of the gospel message by surrendering your own life to God and believing / trusting in the work that His Son accomplished on the cross, and that alone.  It is in realizing that you stand utterly lacking and spiritually bankrupt before a holy and perfect God.  Then will God give you the desire and ability to do true good works that He has planned for you to do.

So, what about John Martignoni’s interpretation of James 5:19-20?  Is this just another attempt to promote a “works-based salvation”?  We believe it is.

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.

MARTIGNONI AND SOLA SCRIPTURA

Last month, we specifically addressed the “authority to interpret Scripture” concept which we found in one of John Martignoni’s newsletters (#268).  Martignoni is a well known and influential Catholic apologist who has thousands of people who subscribe to his newsletter and other materials.  So, we feel that it is important to address some of his errors and misrepresentations.

This month, we will take a look at Martignoni’s view of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”).  In newsletters #83 through #85, which can be found here

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter

Martignoni addresses Sola Scriptura and claims that this doctrine is not logical, not historical, and not scriptural.  But his foundational argument is based on a couple of false premises.  For example, Martignoni first defines Sola Scriptura in this way in newsletter #83:

“First, let me define the dogma of Sola Scriptura so that you know exactly what I mean when I use the term.  As I understand it, it is the belief that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the only thing that a Christian needs in order to know whatever they need to know about Christian teaching and practice.”

This definition is the first false premise.  Perhaps there are some Protestants who would define Sola Scriptura in this way, but that is certainly not a biblical definition.  We believe that Sola Scriptura is indeed a biblical concept and we would simply define it this way:

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

Key word, “infallible.”  There are indeed other sources of authority (or rules of faith) in the church today, like church leaders, theologians, the writings of church fathers, archaeological and historical evidence, traditions, councils, Bible commentaries, catechisms, etc.  We are free to use these things to help us learn and grow spiritually, but none of these are infallible.  Scripture is the ultimate Rule of Faith today because it is the only infallible one.  But John Martignoni’s false premise is that those who believe in Sola Scriptura must use ONLY the Bible to learn anything spiritual.  But that is a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura.

At the end of this particular newsletter, Martignoni appeals to his audience to help him by asking for advice from his readers so he can “tweak” his upcoming article on Sola Scriptura.  And, in fact, in newsletter #84, his readers are the ones who pointed out that his original definition was “too narrow,” and convinced him to use a somewhat more biblical definition of Sola Scriptura.  His second (refined) definition is this:

“The Bible is the sole authority that one needs to decide what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice.  Now, that is not to say that one cannot learn things from sources other than the Bible, but these other sources are not infallible, as is the Bible, and do not carry the kind of binding authority that the Bible carries.”

Here, it appears that he is starting to understand the meaning of Sola Scriptura.  But immediately after this, Martignoni turns right around and contradicts this new definition by saying:

“In other words, the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the Christian.  If it’s not in the Bible, then I, as a Christian, am not bound to believe it.”

He misses the fact that Sola Scriptura allows for the Christian to believe in other rules of faith, as long as that rule does not conflict with Scripture.  Again, he goes from “sole authentic teaching” to “sole rule of faith.”  He reverts back to his original (faulty) definition.

And once again, in newsletter #85, Martignoni does another word switch:

“Does the Bible teach that it is the sole infallible authority for deciding matters related to Christian teaching and practice?  In other words, does the Bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith for the Christian?”
 

Do you see what he does here?  In the first half, he gets the biblical definition right, but then turns right around and switches back to his original wording.  This is a typical bait-and-switch tactic.

Still again, he later contradicts his refined definition of Sola Scriptura by saying:

“However, it nowhere says anything about the Bible being the sole rule of faith for the Christian.”
 

Martignoni seems to have trouble maintaining a consistent definition of Sola Scriptura.  How many times do we need to remind him that Sola Scriptura DOES NOT mean that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.  It is the sole INFALLIBLE rule of faith.  There is a world of difference. 

 

Is Martignoni intentionally muddying the water?  A professional apologist like himself should know better; he should easily be able to recognize the difference between the two definitions.  Apparently (by his own admission) even his readers can tell the difference, since they were the ones who suggested the new definition.

John Martignoni’s second false premise in these articles is that we need infallible authority when we interpret the Bible and we cannot allow “individual interpretation” of Scripture.  But we already addressed that error in last month’s article here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/10/martignoni-and-authority-to-interpret.html

Again, this “authority to interpret” argument is one of Martignoni’s foundational arguments that he uses often.  For him, it is a major building block for many (if not most) of his teachings.  But exposing this false “need” for infallible interpretations undercuts Martignoni’s whole “authority argument” and brings it crumbling down.

We cannot emphasize this enough:  Even if John Martignoni’s church was infallible (and we strongly assert that it is not) and if they were able to perfectly and infallibly interpret Scripture, he would still be in the same “trap” as the Protestant.  He must still use his own fallible mind and faculties, along with common sense, to interpret his supposed infallible source (the Catholic Church).  He cannot claim that fallible interpretations are a problem for Protestants, but not for Catholics.  We are all fallible.

 

So, John Martignoni is off to a very bad start if he cannot even get the definition of Sola Scriptura right, and if one of his most foundational arguments (“authority to interpret”) is invalid.  Interested readers can find, in this blog, answers to Martignoni’s other arguments against Sola Scriptura, as well.  See these links:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-apostles-practice-sola-scriptura.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/08/welcome.html

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

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

We also have an eight-part series on Sola Scriptura starting here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/03/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-1.html