The Catholic Church

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)

The Catholic Church | Christian Topics

Biblical Archaeology | email us

You are Peter [rock], and on this rock I will build my church (Mat 16:18)

Site Index

North Forest

The Catholic Church

John Shepard

Nov 12, 2002

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)

Read it now | The Catholic Church | North Forest

Purpose

To demonstrate that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura (scripture only) is unsound and unbiblical.

Sola Scriptura

Summary

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)

Protestants claim that the Bible is the sole authority in all that it asserts. The difficulty of this view is that so many well-meaning theologians have come up with so many different interpretations from the same Bible. Who are we to believe?

Catholics, however, believe that the authority of the Catholic Church supercedes the Bible because she has the divinely given authority to provide the true interpretation of the Bible based on Jesus' promise to the church.

Although Protestants usually claim to base their faith exclusively on the Bible, this claim is not strictly correct. There are things Protestants believe based exclusively on the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Synods (meetings of church leaders for the purpose of resolving issues and for providing an "official" statement or conclusion). These are:

The list of books to be included in the Bible (the Canon) cannot be determined from the pages of the Bible, but was provided by the Early Church Fathers (based on the common practice of the church).
The doctrine that the Bible is inerrant comes from outside the Bible (although there is Biblical support for it).
The creeds developed by the Early Church Fathers (often in response to popular heresies) properly define the Christian faith and are accepted as foundational by many Protestant Denominations.
Protestants look to the creedal formulations of various Biblical doctrines (such as the Trinity) as authoritative.

Catholics are correct in stating that we must look outside the Bible to understand a certain set of foundational truths.

The Catholic Church | North Forest | Top of page

Is the Bible the Sole Authority?

In considering the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura I have observed that Protestants don't completely rely on the Bible as they claim. The following are additional things which even they must consider:

To determine which books and letters are inspired and authoritative (the Canon) required assistance from the Early Church Fathers. The Canon cannot be derived from the Bible itself. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura must assume that we first have an authoritative set of books to work with.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself originated from the Protestant reformers and is therefore merely an interpretation of the Bible. Interpretations require assumptions and information which originate from outside the Bible. These include: (1) Rules of interpretation and hermeneutical principles, (2) knowledge about Biblical times and history, (3) archaeological evidence, (4) an accurate translation of the Bible, (5) philosophical and theological biases which inevitably guide the interpretation (Martin Luther certainly had a bias which he could not disguise). Those who hold to Sola Scriptura pretend that the Bible is easy to accurately interpret but the fact of so many contradictory interpretations proves that this is not the case.
Many key doctrines, such as the Trinity, which are accepted as foundational by Protestants are not specifically formulated in the Bible but centuries later by the Church -- usually in response to heresy. All doctrines are based on biblical interpretations and these interpretations are outside of the Bible. As a result the doctrines themselves are also outside of the Bible. To be true to Sola Scriptura we would not need any additional books of doctrinal formulations, Catechisms, or commentaries; yet Protestants have a high regard for these. Even sermons are extra-Biblical -- it should be sufficient to merely read the Bible during church because expounding on the scripture violates Sola Scriptura.

Even Protestants must admit that there are several sources of valid extra-biblical information:

We must trust the determination of the Canon by the Early Church Fathers and the church.
We should consider the writings of the Church Fathers and the Synods (the Creeds) to assist us in properly interpreting the Bible and avoiding heresy.

There is a side effect of Sola Scriptura which Protestants ignore. Since Sola Scriptura assumes that anyone can properly interpret the Bible and arrive at the correct interpretation, Protestants should be willing to embrace a variety of interpretations including non-standard ones as long as the proponents have provided adequate Biblical support. Of course, few Protestants are willing to do this because they each consider themselves as the only valid authoritative interpretation authority. For example, Martin Luther considered his interpretation of the scripture to be the correct one. Examples of views with adequate biblical support that should also be acceptable to those believing Sola Scriptura: (1) non-Trinitarian views of Christ, (2) amillennialism, and (3) the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses. The only way to be certain of the truth of a particular interpretation which has adequate biblical support is with the genuine Holy Spirit-inspired interpretative authority of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church | North Forest | Top of page

The Canon

The Canon was determined by people and, in fact, cannot be derived from the pages of the Bible itself. So we must trust the determination made by the Early Church Fathers as to which books we should include in the Bible and which to reject.

But we have two versions of the Canon -- one which includes the Apocrypha and one which excludes it. Which one should we use? And if people came up with two different list of books then how can we trust either list? If we are forced to depend on people to determine the Canon why should we not also believe them in their formulation of such doctrines as the Eucharist and the papacy?

In my opinion, it is not really that big of an issue whether or not we accept the Apocrypha. These several books which are included in the Old Testament don't have an effect on any significant doctrine. People commonly assume that the doctrine of Purgatory can only be determined from the Apocrypha but this is not the case. Here is the passage in question:

Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. (2 Macc 12:46)

This historical passage speaks about the Jewish practice and belief at the time. But the New Testament also includes a passage with this same doctrine in the context of Christian practice and belief. The passage from Second Maccabees is similar to the following from First Corinthians which also makes reference to this practice in the context of Christian practice:

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? (1 Cor 15:29)

The goals in determining which books and letters should be included in the Canon are:

Discover which were written by the Apostles and their assistants.
Ensure that forgeries are not included.
Ensure that heretical writings are not included.
Ensure that mistranslations are not included.

We can trust that the Early Church Fathers got this right.

The Catholic Church | North Forest | Top of page

Biblical Interpretation

How can we be sure that our interpretations of the Bible are correct? Why are there so many different interpretations of key passages? Is the Catholic Church's claim to being the only true authority in biblical interpretation correct?

There are hermeneutical principles we can use to interpret the Bible. But if we look at the writings of the various Bible scholars over the centuries, we find a variety of differing viewpoints. The creeds formulate doctrines on certain matters, such as the Trinity, but these creedal statements have developed over time and even contradict one another. Catholicism claims that only she can properly interpret the Bible and properly sort out these difficult issues. Who can we trust?

Why would God give us His word yet make it so difficult to understand?

The problem is that without accepting the Catholic Church as the interpretive authority, we will be forever coming up with our own particular interpretations which will contradict the interpretations of others. We could attempt to find the common set of interpretations that everybody can agree on, but there is practically nothing of significance in this category.

There is another approach to resolve the problem, which I discuss merely to highlight the issues involved. I don't seriously present this option as a viable alternative. This approach is to not use any doctrinal formulations at all but to merely repeat what the Bible says about a topic. An example of this approach follows:

The Trinity as an Example

The Trinity is a key doctrine of the Bible. It has developed over the centuries as people struggled with heretical teachings. Each new formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity came closer to expressing the modern doctrine until there was stability with Augustine's statement and the modern view of the Trinity was established.

But did Paul understand the Trinity in the modern form? I suspect not. What seems clear in the New Testament is that Paul (and others) understood the following key points:

There is one God
Jesus, the Son, is God
The Father is God
Jesus had a relationship with the Father
The Holy Spirit is God
There is no contradiction between the "oneness" and the "manyness" of God

The modern doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond these simple understandings as it attempts to define, explain, and defend the doctrine against attacks from various heretical views.

Two important questions for Protestants to consider are, (1) "If we are committed to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, why should we accept the doctrine of the Trinity at all since it clearly goes beyond the statements of the Biblical text and even adds to Paul's concept?" and (2) "What justification is there for believing in doctrinal formulations that took centuries to develop?"

A Possible Solution to the Dilemma

One possible solution to this dilemma is to adopt a simpler view of Christian doctrine. (As I mentioned previously, I don't consider this a viable alternative). In this solution we would not formulate doctrines at all and would merely:

Understand the New Testament statements as they are without "translating" them into doctrinal formulations, and
Use the creedal formulations only to guard against heresy (since that is what motivated the creeds in the first place).

This solution is more true to the principle of Sola Scriptura although it still has these fatal problems:

There is no way to know what the Canon should be.
There is no way to determine the principle of Sola Scriptura -- it must be merely assumed.
There is no way to know that the Bible is inspired and inerrant.

The significance of this alternative is that rather than attempting to understand difficult doctrinal statements (creeds), we would instead limit our understanding to the words and ideas of the Bible. For example, we would prefer to understand the words of the apostle Paul under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than the words of Augustine. The readers and hearers could then judge for themselves how to understand these inspired words without formulating doctrinal statements.

Thus, when we considered the Trinity, for example, we would content ourselves with understanding what the New Testament asserts about the Trinity and de-emphasize the creedal statements about the Trinity. By insisting that the creedal statement is the correct understanding instead of viewing the New Testament statements as sufficient, we are in danger of making the Church Fathers our authority for understanding the Bible rather than using the Bible itself as the final word on the matter. Doing so contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

We would then have the freedom to understand the words of the Bible in whatever manner we chose, using the creeds as our guide to keep from misunderstanding God's intent and drifting off into heretical views. But the side effect of this procedure is that there would not be a unity of belief and the church would be fragmented. This alternative is very unsatisfying as I have previously indicated. Yet to be true to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura this is really the only viable alternative, otherwise we are inadvertently making the church fathers or the Protestant reformers our authority in violation of Sola Scriptura. There really is no satisfying solution to this problem other than to accept the Catholic Church as the interpretive authority.

To illustrate the difficulties I have highlighted let us consider various viewpoints that are not accepted by mainstream Protestant doctrinal understanding but which result from this process of doctrinal definition. For example, the doctrine of "modality" (that there is one person of God who operates in three modes) was developed by focusing on trying to explain what the Bible leaves unsaid and to understand its meaning beyond what is explicitly stated. The Bible doesn't consider how to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the oneness of God and the manyness of the three persons of the Godhead. By going beyond what the Bible explicitly asserts the modalists have developed a doctrine that is troublesome and problematic. They should have contented themselves with either (1) understanding the simple statements of the Bible on the topic, or (2) accepting the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by the Catholic Church.

Summary of this Alternative

Without the obvious solution of accepting the Catholic Church as the interpretative authority, there is only one other possible solution (but it is not very satisfying and does not provide a unified church). To reiterate the point, the two aspects of this solution are:

Rather than dwell on creedal statements and formulated doctrines, we would instead focus on the statements of the Bible. Doctrines and topics that fall into this category are Calvinism, Trinity, Eschatology, Genesis, Faith, Sin and many others.
We would use the creeds and the writings of the Early Church Fathers as a guide to assist us in avoiding heretical viewpoints -- but not in place of the statements of the Bible.

The Catholic Church | North Forest | Top of page

Inerrancy

Role of Church Fathers

The previous sections suggest that the Church Fathers have an important role in our understanding of the Bible and its doctrines. Specifically, we depend on the Church Fathers in three ways:

The Early Church Fathers confirmed which books properly belong in the Canon.
The Church Fathers confirmed that the Bible is inerrant.
The Church Fathers formulated doctrinal and creedal statements as they fought against heresy. We should refer to these statements so that we can learn from their experience.

The Catholic Church claims that the Church Fathers played a key role in determining correct doctrine because the Church inaugurated by Christ is the ultimate authority in matters of faith, doctrine, practice and morals, and this Church includes people. The writings of the Church Fathers are to be used as a guide to assist us in avoiding the errors that others have made.

When we read and study the writings of the Church Fathers as they fought against heresy we have to consider the key issues just as they did. Doing this keeps us from falling into the same errors that others did. And thinking about things from the point of view of the Church Fathers helps us avoid heretical views on modern issues as they come up.

This is, of course, the role that the Catholic Church has provided for nearly 2,000 years. Only a divinely-inspired interpretation authority can possibly correctly determine which writings of the Church Fathers are true and which are merely man's opinions.

The writings of the Church Fathers are not inerrant. Because of this we must judge what they say by comparing it (1) with the Bible, (2) with reality, and (3) with the statements of the Catholic Church. Just because the writings of the Church Fathers are not inerrant is not to say that their writings are not valuable -- to the contrary, they are very valuable and useful for the reasons already stated.

In studying the topic of End Time Prophecy I discovered a striking proof that some of the Church Fathers made an error. This concerns their view of the millennium. Six of the Church Fathers wrote things concerning a 1,000 year millennium which from our vantage point are clearly wrong. They are:

Barnabas 130 A.D.
Irenaeus 150 A.D.
Aviricius Marcellus 163 A.D.
Cyprian 258 A.D.
Commodianus 305 A.D.
Lactantius 325 A.D.

These six all affirmed that human history would last exactly 6,000 years. But this is incorrect for two reasons:

1. Starting at 4,004 B.C. (Bishop Ussher's date and the earliest date anyone has ever proposed for the creation of Adam) and adding 6,000 years results in the date 1997 A.D (using the solar year) or the early 1900's (using the lunar year of 360 days, which is the year usually used for prophetic analysis). Most young-earth proponents usually allow for a date of 10,000 to 15,000 B.C. for the creation of Adam which makes the problem even worse.

2. The scientific evidence testifies that the earth and the universe are very old. In this case Adam was created somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 B.C.

If they got this wrong then their entire end-time viewpoint collapses since the idea of 6,000 years of human history is foundational to their viewpoint. This idea originated with the Jews who interpreted the six days of creation as 1,000 year periods of time. The seventh "day of rest" therefore is the millennium.

The Catholic Church | North Forest | Top of page

Links

Top of page | The Catholic Church | North Forest

Links: North Forest | The Catholic Church | Christian Topics | Biblical Archaeology | email us

Please feel free to email: js16@northforest.org
http://www.northforest.org/CatholicApologetics/SolaScriptura1.html	The Catholic Church
Revised: Nov 16, 2002