Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

Cross Examination Rebuttal

 

Moses Flores

 

           

            I would like to thank Ben for a great cross examination.  I especially appreciated his spirit with the last question that he asked me about loving the Bible.  I hope all can see the spirit in which this debate is being conducted and will take Ben, and hopefully myself, as an example of how we can dialogue in the midst of very real differences.

 

            There are some things that need to be pointed out from our cross examination nonetheless.  First, in regards to the practice of Sola Scriptura, it needs to be stated that not every non-Catholic group teaches or practices the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  There were many questions regarding the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses directed toward me.  Not all non-Roman Catholics are true Protestants!  That bears worth saying.  Historically speaking, the main group that continued on with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were the Calvinist and Lutherans.  Anglicans held to the Reformed doctrines while maintaining Roman liturgy.  The Anabaptist groups which became the Baptist church eventually adopted a Confession professing Sola Scriptura.

            The principle is there, but how it is actually practiced is certainly different from the doctrine.  But does the malpractice of the doctrine or the neglect of it mean the doctrine is wrong?  Does Scripture cease to be authorative because it is mishandled?  Hardly!  As pointed out earlier, the Bible itself says that some will purposefully seek to mishandle and twist the Scriptures.  These men are described as “unlearned” and “corrupted” (2 Pet. 3:16).  If that is what these kinds of men do with the Scriptures – which remain God’s authorative word nonetheless – what could the learned and pure in heart do with the Word?  Isn’t is possible that the one who diligently studies could rightly handle the word of truth (cf. 2 Tim 2:15).  To deny that possibility is to say that the Scriptures are lying.  Why would the apostle tell us to study the Word to be able to understand it correctly if, as Rome would assert, we needed the tradition of the Church in order to interpret it correctly in the first place?  Rome’s understanding of tradition as the correct interpreting tool of Scripture turns this Scripture on its head!  It makes no sense.

            The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, on the other hand, is in perfect coherence with the command to study Scripture to rightly understand it.  For in studying Scripture to correctly understand it are the presuppositions that 1) Scripture can be understood and 2) that Scripture contains all that it needs to be understood by itself (formal sufficiency, or Scripture as its own interpreter).  The doctrine of Sola Scriptura presupposes that God is His own interpreter.  He does not require any “supplement” interpretation to interpret Him.

            The other point that must be mentioned is the discrepancy between how Ben defined tradition and how tradition has been infallibly defined by the Council of Trent as seen in the Vatican I document regarding the dogma of Papal Infallibility.  According to the council of Trent, the fourth session, the “tradition” of the church is defined as the “unanimous consent of the fathers”.  We read,

 

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which the holy Mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such  interpretations should never at any time be published.  Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by law. (Council of Trent, Session 4, Decree Concerning the edition and use of the Sacred Books)

 

            What is the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”?  If one reads the Fathers, there is hardly “unanimous consent” on very many doctrines or interpretations of Scripture save those involving the Trinity and the Person of Jesus Christ.  Likewise, Vatican I asserted that Scripture was not to be interpreted against the sense of the Church of Rome nor of that of the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”.  Now, this becomes important in defining “tradition” as the “true interpretation” of Scripture, which should be in accord with the “unanimous consent of the Fathers.” 

            Yet this very doctrine which defined Papal Infallibility based on Matthew 16:18-19 – which is, as I understand from Catholic Scholar Mitch Pacwa – only one of two portions of Scripture that have been infallibly interpreted by Rome out of all the Bible.  According to Vatican I, Matthew 16:18-19 is to be properly interpreted that Peter is the Rock whom Christ builds the Church on, and the words “the gates of hades shall not prevail” is to be understood that the Office of Peter, the Papacy, could not err when speaking “ex cathedra”.  Now this is the sense which Rome says this passage is to be infallibly regarded as.  However, when one examines the Fathers for “unanimous consent” it becomes clear that only Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and Firmilian interpreted Peter as the rock, but not in the sense given by Vatican I.  They understood Peter as the rock in the senses (even here there is not consensus) that Peter is representative of all true believers, that all bishops possess the chair of Peter, that Peter is the symbol of the unity of the Bishops, or in the sense that Peter was first to open the kingdom to all men).  Never once do these men mention the gift of infallibility! 

            To further display that “tradition” of the Church as dogmatically defined doesn’t hold water historically, it should be noted that the main interpretations of Matt. 16:18-19 either posited Christ as the Rock (Augustine, Jerome, John of Damascus to name a few) or Peter’s Confession as the Rock (Ambrose, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Pope Gregory the Great, Gregory of Nyssa to name a few).

            So what is the “tradition” of the Church if it finds no “unanimous consent”?  Essentially it boils down to what has been called by some, Sola Ecclesia, that is, the Church alone.  The Church of Rome alone possesses the infallible right to infallibly interpret Scripture, whether or not the Fathers agree on the matters. 

            I have previously quoted from some Fathers who held to the principle of Sola Scriptura as they sought to defend the Christian faith against the Gnostic and Arians even.  It was to the Scriptures alone as God-breathed revelation that they sought to establish their doctrines against the enemies of the Christian faith.  I don’t believe they were wrong in doing this.  The doctrine was not defined until the Reformation and possibly for the reason that Ben stated as to when and why doctrines become stated in the first place – because it wasn’t attacked until then! 

            Historically speaking, the Bible once belonged only to the clergy.  They were the only learned ones who could read it.  Lay Christians were at the mercy of the priest and bishops to properly interpret Scripture for them.  Not to mention that getting a copy of Scripture took a while as the printing press was not invented until the early 16^th century.  Thus, the issue of the Scripture could not have been addressed in such a context as the people didn’t even know what they said.  And the ones who got hold of the Scriptures and saw that many teachings taught by Rome which were not in the Scriptures were burned as heretics.  Men like John Hus. 

            I remember watching a 1953 version of the movie “Martin Luther”.  While discussing the issue of “tradition” and Scripture a priest ask Martin Luther, “But brother Luther, if you take away the traditions of the Church and its teachings, what will you give the people?”  To which Luther answers, “Christ.”

            The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is intended to take away all that would obscure one from seeing the simplicity that is in Jesus Christ.  Paul wrote to the Colossians

 

“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to festival or new moon or a Sabbath.  These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.  Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, form whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments grows with a growth that is from God.

            If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations – do not handle, do not taste, do not touch (referring to things that all perish as they are used) – according to human precepts and teachings?  These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of now value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

 

            Paul does not want us to miss Jesus Christ by becoming ensnared in things not revealed by God.  Jesus didn’t want anybody trapped in traditions that went beyond Scripture (see Mark 7:1-13).  The simplicity of Christ is contained in the simplicity of Scripture alone as God’s word and not going beyond it.  Amen.