QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 8)

“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) 

This will be the eighth and final article in this particular series on Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”).  Today we will specifically address an argument that is very commonly used by Catholics (as well as others).  Many enemies of Sola Scriptura consider this argument to be the super-duper, one-punch-one-kill, granddaddy-of-all-arguments against the teaching of Sola Scriptura.  It is an argument about the canon (i.e., the list of books that are included in Scripture).  And it goes like this:

ARGUMENT #8 – HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE IN THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE BIBLE ALONE WHEN THE BIBLE NEVER EVEN REVEALS ITS OWN CANON?  WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE CANON IS WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, AND SINCE IT’S NOT IN THE BIBLE, WE NEED ANOTHER INFALLIBLE SOURCE TO TELL US.

Again, let’s remember the definition of Sola Scriptura… that the Bible is the only infallible Rule of Faith for the church today.  And because of that, it is our ultimate moral standard.  But this does not mean that the Bible has to be an exhaustive source of every bit of spiritual information that ever existed.

It is true that the Bible does not contain a specific list of all its books.  God indeed chose not to place such a list within its pages, but this doesn’t make the Bible insufficient as a rule of faith (as is evident in 2 Timothy 3:16-17). 

But the premise of the “canon argument” is wrong to start with.  This whole argument is ASSUMING the need for “infallible certainty.”  That’s what the argument is really all about, and this supposed “need” is a widespread assumption in the Catholic Church.  But this article is not about WHO determined the canon… it’s not about HOW we got the canon… it’s not even about WHAT the true canon is.  It’s simply demonstrating that:  1) the canon does NOT NEED to be listed in the Bible and 2) Catholics don’t really have the certainty that they claim to have.

Catholics often boast about their infallible certainty, but if infallible certainty on the canon is so important to the Catholic Church, then why was the canon not “infallibly” defined until the Council of Trent in 1546?  It seems that the Catholic Church talks a good talk, but has done a very poor job of actually providing its members with any real certainty, much less the certainty that it so proudly claims.  For the first 1500 years of church history, Catholic Tradition has failed to provide infallible certainty on the canon issue.  Not only that, but their present canon also has some problematic issues (see the links below).  So, this “infallible-certainty-on-the-canon” argument sounds good, but it is nothing but a delusion.  

See also these articles:

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

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

So, we have reason to question the Catholic’s claim to certainty on the canon.  But we also have reason to question his certainty on Bible interpretation, as well, because the Catholic Church also claims to have infallibly interpreted certain Bible verses.  But there are over 31,000 verses in the Bible, and only a tiny percentage of these verses is “infallibly” interpreted by the Catholic Church.  Catholic apologists disagree on the actual number of these verses (some say 8, some 11, some 20, etc.), but even if there were 100 verses that the Church had officially and “infallibly” interpreted over the centuries, that would still only be about THREE ONE-THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT (.003%) of the Bible infallibly interpreted!  To get an idea of the size of this percentage, this would be equal to only 16 feet out of a full mile, or only 26 hours out of a full year.  If a company had 2,000 employees, this would be like having only 6 of them show up for work.  Again, these examples represent the extremely small percentage of Bible verses that carry the Church’s guarantee that they are correctly interpreted.  This is pretty weak for a group that so often scoffs at Protestants for their “lack of certainty.”    

Only 100 verses in 2,000 years?  If this is any indication of the rate of progress for “infallible certainty” in the Catholic Church, then take heart, dear Catholics – you only have a half-million years or so (620,000 to be exact) to achieve complete infallible certainty on the whole Bible!  This should hardly be reassuring to Catholics.  If the Catholic Church is all that it claims to be, and it is really concerned about giving its people “infallible certainty,” it surely could have done better than this in 2,000 years.

If the Catholic Church feels the need to infallibly interpret Scripture in the first place, then why so few verses?  Why not all of it, or at least most of it?  And isn’t it interesting how certain uniquely-Catholic concepts (however unbiblical) have made their way into this list of “infallible” teachings (e.g., the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, etc.).  Is it just me, or is this suspicious to anyone else?   Are they perfectly satisfied with just a few verses interpreted this way, as long as some of their pet doctrines can achieve this “infallible status”?

Catholic apologists may object and say that it was never the intention of the Church to infallibly interpret ALL Bible verses, and they only did this when disputes came up.  But many, many disputes came up over the centuries that never ended up in the “infallibly declared” category, so this is not a valid objection.  

Ironically, there is so much confusion and disagreement about this, even among Catholic leaders and apologists.  Catholics will admit that this topic is complex and multi-layered, and no one seems to really be able to say exactly which statements are properly considered “infallible.”  This fact simply emphasizes to us, all the more, that the great “certainty” that the Catholic boasts about is a mere fantasy.  

Another problem with the canon argument is that many (if not most) Catholics today seem to believe in the “material sufficiency” view of the Bible (See Part 6 of this series).  This view states that the Bible has all the necessary “material” in it.  If that’s true, then the canon (which is not in there) must not NEED to be in the Bible.  So, if the “material sufficiency” view is correct, this canon argument against Sola Scriptura cannot be true.  No one can hold to the canon argument and to the “material sufficiency” view at the same time.

One more objection against the canon argument is that if a rule of faith (the Bible) must have a list of its contents (the canon), then what about the Catholic Church’s own rule of faith?  Where is the “canon” of Catholic Tradition?  It does not exist.  So, if the concept of Sola Scriptura fails because the Bible doesn’t have an infallible list of its own books, then Tradition also fails since it doesn’t list its own contents, either.  This is certainly a double standard on their part.

In conclusion, this “granddaddy-of-all-arguments” is based on the false premise that we MUST have “infallible certainty” of the canon.  But the fact is, only God can have this kind of certainty.  We can’t.  Still, by His grace, we humans can have a reasonable and sufficient certainty on God’s inspired books.  He leaves us free to search out other sources (e.g., church history, the fathers, etc.), to use discernment, evaluate the available evidence, and use our fallible minds to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

So, the fact that the canon is not specifically listed within the pages of Scripture does nothing to affect the Bible’s sufficiency as our Ultimate Rule of Faith. 

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 7)

“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) 

There is another attack on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, an attack which doesn’t seem to be as common as the previous arguments.  But it is more of an attempt to address the “practical” side of the Sola Scriptura debate.

This article will only be “specific” in the sense that it is only about practical issues concerning Sola Scriptura.  Within this framework we will touch on several different, but related, points:

ARGUMENT #7 – THE CONCEPT OF SOLA SCRIPTURA CANNOT BE TRUE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL FOR THE EARLY CHURCH.  FOR EXAMPLE, HOW COULD IT BE TRUE BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE PRINTING PRESS IN THE 1400’S?  FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA TO WORK BACK THEN, THERE HAD TO BE PLENTIFUL ACCESS TO SCRIPTURE - EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE HAD THEIR OWN PERSONAL BIBLE.  BUT VERY FEW COULD AFFORD TO OWN A BIBLE, AND MOST PEOPLE WERE ILLITERATE, ANYWAY.  ALSO, IN THOSE DAYS, BECAUSE OF THE LONG DAYS OF HARD LABOR, EVEN IF THEY COULD READ, THEY DIDN’T HAVE TIME TO STUDY LIKE WE DO TODAY.  FURTHERMORE, A LACK OF PROPER NUTRITION PREVENTED THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO PROPERLY STUDY GOD’S WORD.  SO BECAUSE OF ALL THESE PRACTICAL REASONS, SOLA SCRIPTURA COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.

All these are misrepresentations of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  Let us remember the simple definition of Sola Scriptura that we shared at the beginning of this series:

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

With this definition in mind, one should recognize the fact that easy availability or mass distribution of Bibles has nothing to do with the truthfulness of Sola Scriptura.  A person does not need to own a Bible in order for Sola Scriptura to be true.  It is true whether he owns a Bible or not.  Scripture can be the only infallible Rule of Faith even if only a few Bibles exist.

Literacy and education also have nothing to do with the truthfulness of Sola Scriptura.  Scripture can be (and is) the Ultimate Authority, whether a person can read or not.  And just because someone can’t read or write does not mean that he is stupid or that he has no comprehension skills.  Even if illiterate, he may still easily memorize Bible verses and understand biblical concepts that he was taught by someone else.  The learning and spreading of God’s Word was not prevented by illiteracy.  

The fact that many in the early church were illiterate proves nothing.  Just as they were taught their catechism by others, they could just as easily have learned the Scriptures from others.  God is fully able and willing to reveal Himself to the lowly, the poor, and the uneducated (Matthew 11:25; 1 Corinthians 1:26-27; Acts 4:13; Proverbs 1:1-7; Psalm 119:130).  But being illiterate does not demand that one should need an “infallible” Magisterium to teach him.

Concerning the people of the early church not having time, we all have 24 hours in every day.  Anyone can take a Bible passage, ponder on it, and have discussions about it during the day while working.  It is not just the mere reading of it that counts.

Concerning improper nutrition, this is a pitiful argument for two reasons:  1) The church leaders more than likely had the same basic diet that the “common people” had, so how is it that church leaders were able to learn?  And 2) If the common people could understand the catechism and other teachings that were taught to them, they could certainly also understand Scripture that was taught to them.  It takes no more nourishment to understand Scripture than it does these other things.   

But to further demonstrate the absurdity of these arguments, let’s put them in simpler terms:

Imagine being at a baseball game and there was a dispute about the official rule book of baseball (i.e., its ultimate authority).  What if someone said about this rule book:

• “This can’t be the ultimate authority because everyone in the stands and all the players don’t have a copy of it!”

• “This can’t be the ultimate authority because I can’t read!”

•  “This can’t be the ultimate authority because I don’t have time to study it!”

• “This can’t be the ultimate authority because I haven’t eaten anything all week and my thinking is not up to par!”

These are all equally ridiculous reasons, but many Catholics (and others) resort to using these same arguments against Sola Scriptura.  None of the above reasons stops the official rule book in baseball from being the ultimate authority for baseball.  In the same way, these arguments cannot be applied against Sola Scriptura.  Thus, the “Sola-Scriptura-doesn’t-work-because-it-is-impractical” argument is shown to be an empty one.

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.