Myth Busters: Sola Scriptura

Over the next few months, I am going to do a series of posts I'll call "Myth Busters". Like the popular TV show, my job will be to debunk urban legends, myths, and rumor that plague the world with anti-Catholic dribble.

Like the show, we will "test" the ideas out and see if they work.

First up: Sola Scriptura.

The Start of the Church?
Nope, that would have to wait until the Bible was finished

In the history of the Protestant reforbellion (ht: ow), sola scriptura was what would be known as the formal cause of the schism. It was a war-chant, popular among the peasants, and was a kind of pandora's box for the worst of what might be conjured in the minds of men furnished with the raw text of Scripture sans the Church. In the early years, men got so excited about the prospects of Christ without a Church they proposed things like: no need to say the "Our Father" (see Luther's catechism), "who needs baptism" or "I don't need to go to church on Sunday". Of course we can sniff the trail from all of these attitudes right down to the present day ecclesial potpourri.

Sola Scriptura means "scripture alone" and by the phrase the Reformers meant that the Scriptures would be the sole, rule of faith. No Church, Pope or otherwise would infallibly teach the word of God. The Bible and the Bible alone is the direct teacher to the people of God.

Boy this sounds great, doesn't it?

One problem: It's not in the Bible.

Second Problem: It doesn't work.

The First Problem- "Nope, not in my Bible"

To evidence the problem, I've included an excerpt from Protestant apologists James White's website regarding the infamous proof-text for sola scriptura. The verse in question is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." His comments (mine in blue):

They translate [adequate] our passage as, "completely qualified for every good deed."  While Louw and Nida give us two witnesses, I wish to direct you as well to the well-known scholarly resource by Fritz Reinecker and Cleon Rogers, entitled Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament.  Here, we find the following, in regards to both terms, here in verse 17: "fit, complete, capable, sufficient, i.e., able to meet all demands; ejxartivzw: completely outfitted, fully furnished, fully equipped, fully supplied."

Hence, we see [notice "we see" not because of the Holy Spirit in our hearts but because of a lexical definition by Reinecker and Rogers] the following:

Number 1:  Paul here teaches that the Bible is A rule of faith.  For he says the Church's function of teaching and rebuking and instructing is to be based upon God-inspired Scriptures. First, he doesn't say anything of the sort. I'll give the context of the passage below this quote from Mr. White.

Number 2:  We see that this passage teaches the sufficiency of the Scriptures to function in this way. The passage mentions sufficiency but it does not mention total sufficiency or Scripture alone. In fact, the versus right before it undermine his reading.

And, number 3:  We see that Paul not only does not refer us to another rule of faith, but implicitly denies the necessity of such a rule of faith by his teaching on the ability of Scripture to completely equip the man of God. This assumes what it argues. Namely, that Paul is giving the Christians a rule of faith (proof-text for sola scriptura). What the passage says is that Scripture is sufficient qua scripture. This is what we call material sufficiency not formal sufficiency (hence the whole formal cause of the Reformation).

Therefore, I assert (yep) that the doctrine of sola scriptura is taught plainly in this passage.

Now, one might well ask, "Is this the only place where sola scriptura is taught?"  Most certainly not, though it is the clearest (this is why I included it in this discussion). For example, we find this concept plainly enunciated in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ when coming into conflict with the traditions of the Jewish leaders. Note the words recorded in Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 15: "Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat.'  Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, "Honor your father and mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God," he is not to "honor his father" with it.  Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

We can agree on the way he reads this last passage. However, he then applies this passage to Catholic Holy Tradition. Bad move. Instead, we might ask, since Christ founded a Church that is the "ground and pillar of truth", "holds the keys of the kingdom" and the "gates of hell will not prevail against", why do you reject that Church because of your man-made, 500 year-old traditions?

As I mentioned, the preceding texts give undeniable evidence that St. Paul is not teaching what Mr. White and others assert he is teaching. 2 Timothy 3:10-15 says (context):

"Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me! Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

"Who" you receive the Gospel from is paramount to the Gospel. Even more, St. Paul seems to be saying that one is convinced by the Scriptures (Sacred Writings), The Church (whom you have learned) and the Tradition (teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance...). Since we are all in the mood for proof-texting, this is fairly close to the formal definition of the tri-part authority structure of the Catholic Church (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium).

In addition, St. Paul is making specific reference to the Old Testament (which they knew from their "childhood"). The early Church bathed in the writings of the Old Testament and understood that within them held all the riches of Christ for everything in the O.T. was a foreshadowing and prefiguring of Him. What seemed like riddles and farce tails gained meaning and definitive shape interpreted through the life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. This fact doesn't diminish the rest of Scripture but rather gives this particular passage its proper context and definitive objective referent.

Thus, sola scriptura is not only not in the Bible, but the famous "proof-text" for this belief comes nowhere close to proving it.

Second Problem: It no worky

Over at CTC, a protestant gentlemen named Bradley aptly wrote:

"Phooey with Sola Argument: If Sola is not a Tradition (with a capital T) then it has no authority and I am free, as a Protestant, to say Phooey with Sola! Let’s give authority to whatever extra-biblical doctrine we find to be helpful in spelling out the truth and call people heretics who don’t agree with our extra-biblical Tradition. If it is a Tradition (with a capital T) then it establishes extra-canonical doctrine as authoritative, and I can say Phooey with Sola! We need Tradition (with a capital T) in order for her to be authoritative anyway, which is what we are trying to avoid. Either way, it’s Phooey with Sola"

I like this a lot. On a logical level, it is apparent to men of good will that the Bible isn't perspicuous, it isn't easy to understand, and that a brief reading of Protestant history evidences that on important things like Baptism, Communion, Justification and Ecclesiology, the Bible alone has performed below its sticker promises to be the regula fide of Christianity. To think about it another way, an authority is only as good as its ability to resolve a conflict.

Sola scriptura also appeals to our pride. In a world of might makes right and where authority is earned, it is hard for us to understand a world where authority is correlative to a calling and a gift.

That's not fair! I can read the Bible and study it just like Pope Benedict XVI and the other bishops. Stomp feet. Flail hands.

Some will object and say the problems aren't so bad, and that Catholics force the meaning of unity and authority to mean hierarchal/organizational unity. But I ask, what is the alternative to organizational unity? Dis-organizational unity?

Organizational and hierarchal unity flows from the person of Christ himself. By entering time and space, God redeems matter by reaffirming its goodness in us. True, the buildings will crumble and fall, but Christ's Church continues on in time growing and perfecting in grace through her sons and daughters. Through ecclesial hierarchy, like the proper hierarchy of nature, Christ instills peace and unity amongst men by his divine sovereignty and divine callings

We all have our place. Sola scriptura robs us of our unique dignity. In the Catholic Church, men and women can live out their vocations without feeling compelled to provide their version of the regula fide to their families on a plate of a best try, lots of prayer, and listening to sound "Bible" teachers. This recipe leads to the inevitability of a despair and cynicism that is all too common amongst Bible believers. They get exhausted bouncing from church to church trying to find the "one" that finally preaches "the truth", yet strangely they know this simply is another way of saying that they are looking for a church that sounds the most like them. That's why Christ gave us a Church, and that through the Truth we would be equipped for "every good work".

Like taking out the trash, changing diapers and being good at accounting.

Next myth: Catholics Worship Mary