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:
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:
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.
