“CATHOLIC TRUTH” AND SOLA SCRIPTURA

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:

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=bryan+mercier%2c+you+tube%2c+%222+catholic+questions+protestants+can%27t+answer%22&mid=36C4E8BC37275A01786D36C4E8BC37275A01786D&FORM=VIRE

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).    

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.