“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).    

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

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 5)

“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) 

The following specific objection against Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) is also fairly common among Catholic apologists:

ARGUMENT #5 – THE PHRASE “EVERY GOOD WORK” IN 2 TIMOTHY 3:17 DOESN’T PROVE SUFFICIENCY.  THERE ARE OTHER THINGS PROFITABLE FOR “EVERY GOOD WORK,” NOT JUST SCRIPTURE.  FOR EXAMPLE, JAMES 1:4 SAYS THAT PATIENCE / PERSEVERANCE WILL EQUIP A PERSON FOR EVERY GOOD WORK, MAKING US “PERFECT AND ENTIRE, LACKING NOTHING.”  SO, ACCORDING TO PROTESTANT LOGIC, WOULDN’T THAT MEAN THAT PERSEVERANCE WOULD ALSO BE SUFFICIENT, AS A RULE OF FAITH?

This is just a variation of the “proves too much” argument (as in Part 4).  But this argument fails also, as we will soon see.

Those who are against Sola Scriptura (Catholics and others) will also point to verses like:

“If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.” (2 Timothy 2:21)

They’ll say, “You see!  Here Paul is saying that avoiding certain things will make you prepared for every good work!  So it’s not just Scripture that is sufficient.”

But there is a major difference between verses like these and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.  And that difference is CONTEXT.  The context of 2 Timothy 3 is about a God-breathed Rule of Faith that we can turn to in times of trouble and spiritual deception.  Paul, knowing that he would soon be killed for his faith (4:6), is giving Timothy critical information before his departure, and he wanted to leave no doubt as to where to turn in the troubling days that surely lay ahead.  The Holy Spirit is pointing to a time of great apostasy (i.e., falling away from the faith), emphasizing the approaching deception in the church (3:13), growing worse and worse.  So, Paul is describing to Timothy the purpose and nature of the one Source he could count on after he’s gone… that which is inspired by God… Sacred Scripture.  While this passage is establishing an infallible Rule of Faith, verses like James 1:4 and 2 Timothy 2:21 are not.  

Catholics are confusing Paul’s pointing to the infallible guide itself (in 2 Timothy 3) with the application of principles within the guide in these other passages.  In other words, 2 Timothy 3 is saying, “This is the Ultimate Standard, the Rule of Faith,” and the other passages are saying, “Here’s how to apply it.”  Two different contexts.

But what if someone wants to argue that these other verses are also in the context of a rule of faith?  What then?  Remember, the Catholic claims that his rule of faith is a “three-legged stool,” that is, Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.  But does any Catholic want to add “perseverance” (James 1:4) or “purging oneself” (2 Timothy 2:21) as a fourth leg to his three-legged stool?   If those contexts really are about a rule of faith, as some may claim, then Catholics would necessarily have to add these things to their own rule of faith.  And this addition would have to mean that the Catholic’s own rule of faith (the “three-legged stool”) is not sufficient.

Either way, this argument doesn’t hold water.

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 4)

“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 common objection to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”):

ARGUMENT #4 – IF 2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17 PROVES THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE, IT WOULD PROVE TOO MUCH, BECAUSE WHEN PAUL MENTIONS SCRIPTURE, HE WAS SPEAKING OF THE ONLY SCRIPTURE THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME:  THE OLD TESTAMENT.  SO, IF SOLA SCRIPTURA APPLIES HERE, WOULDN’T WE HAVE TO SAY THAT THE *OLD TESTAMENT* IS ALL WE NEED AS A RULE OF FAITH?  AND WOULDN’T THAT MEAN THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT IS *UNNECESSARY*?

The premise in this argument is that Paul could only have been talking about the Old Testament.  While it is true that only part of the New Testament was available when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, this argument is using very poor logic.  In the context of this passage, Paul is describing the nature and purpose of “ALL Scripture,” not “all-Scripture-given-to-us-up-until-this-point-in-time.”

This is like someone saying, “All birds have wings.”  But this would not mean that only birds existing UP TO THIS POINT have wings, and it is not saying that birds that hatch in the future will not have wings.  It’s simply saying that it is characteristic of ALL birds to have wings.

For an example that’s closer to home, it is like a Catholic saying, “All infallible / ‘ex-cathedra’ statements of the Catholic Church are true.”  Would any Catholic think that this means that ONLY the ones proclaimed UP TO THIS POINT are true, and that future ones may be FALSE?  No, he would argue that “all” means all.

So when the Apostle Paul said “All Scripture…”, he meant All Scripture, past, present and future (from his perspective).  Is not the New Testament also considered Scripture?  Isn’t it part of the whole?  Absolutely.  No true Christian would deny the inspiration of the New Testament. 

There is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul had only the Old Testament in mind, since he was also addressing the needs of the church of the future, as well (3:1, 13).  When Paul said, “All Scripture,” there is no reason to think he meant otherwise, or to limit his description of the sacred writings to only what was available at that time.

Since the Bible equips us for EVERY GOOD WORK, the problem is not “…IF it would be sufficient, it would prove too much…”  No, the point is that the whole of Scripture IS INDEED SUFFICIENT as the only infallible Rule of Faith for the church today, but Catholic teaching doesn’t line up with this … that’s the problem.  They are using a faulty premise in verse 16 which distorts the conclusion and true meaning of verse 17.

So, this is an illogical and absurd objection that falls flat, since it is just another in a long line of weak attempts to deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.