On my road to conversion, there were some things that I had assumed were true. Perhaps the one, sure foundation was the doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura'. That is that the written Word of God was the final arbiter of all Church dialogue. And then what happened? That one, nagging question I had avoided. When was the Bible written? Who wrote it and canonized it as the Authoritative Word of God? And so I began down the rabbit hole, unsure of what was head. However I knew that through diligence and faith, my belief in 'Sola Scriptura' would be vindicated, and the whole Catholic conversion thought would fade away. (As a bit a foreshadowing, I say Au contraire Mon fr ere). So, I started with the Bible itself, and read. I found a great piece of writing on it, which I have paraphrased as best as I could. Additional thoughts are at the bottom of this entry. Be warned, this is a long read.
Sola scriptura (“only Scripture”) is the Protestant doctrine which claims that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith for the believer. For the Protestant, the Bible is, in and of itself, sufficient without the complementary force of Apostolic Tradition or the teaching authority of the Church. The Catholic position is that Divine Revelation is passed down to us by Tradition — either written (the Bible) or taught orally (also called “Tradition,” but in the more specific sense of
oral Tradition1) — and confirmed and taught to us by the Catholic Church. To get a Protestant’s statement of his own belief, I quote the words of Dr. W. Robert Godfrey: “The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.”
2
The Bible has, according to the Protestant, sixty-six
books.3 These books collectively form the inspired Word of God, which contains
no error. It is written “by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy
3:16).4 All of these books are listed on the table of contents of the King
James Version which I have opened before me now. On the very next page is Genesis, chapter one. It is
assumed, in the Protestant system, that these particular books form the
authentic canon (list) of Scripture. In fact, they take great pains to argue
the point that Catholics “added” books by including the so-called “apocryphal”
books, which boost the sixty-six up to the seventy-two that we have in our
Bible. So it is a doctrine of Protestantism that the sixty-six (and no more )
are the inspired books.
One thing absent from the table of contents is the table of
contents itself. Let me reiterate: The table of contents is not one of the
inspired books of the Bible. This means that it was put together by men.5 Yet,
it is a doctrine of Protestantism, one that a majority of Fundamentalists and
Evangelicals will attest to, that the sixty-six books (and no more ) are the
inspired Word of God. I hope the reader caught the point. If not, please read
this paragraph again, before moving on to the next one.
The point should be obvious: Since there is no inspired
table of contents in the Bible – and no book in the Bible lists itself and the
other sixty five as inspired – then the Protestant depends on something other
than the Bible for his doctrine. So, using Dr. Godfrey’s definition of sola
scriptura above, there is something “concerning faith” which is not “taught in
the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and
understand.”
To recapitulate the argument, we have here a contradiction:
The Bible is the sole source of Christian doctrine, but the list of Bible books
is not in the Bible. The Protestant is forced to go to something outside of the
Bible for Christian doctrine. For me, as a Catholic, the authority of the men who codified my
Bible is no problem: My Church is Infallible.
A Big Hole
The next argument is this: Nowhere in the Bible is the sola
scriptura doctrine taught. Nowhere! The classical Protestant reference used as a proof of sola
scriptura is this one: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto
all good works.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) Note that the passage does not say that the Bible is all
that is needed for Christian doctrine. So the passage does not spell out sola
scriptura clearly. But it seems to say that the man of God may be “perfect” and
“thoroughly furnished unto all good works” just by following the teaching of
Scripture… or does it? No, in fact, it does not say that at all. It says that Scripture
is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in
righteousness. It’s the doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction by which
the man of God may be “thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” For Timothy,
that doctrine, correction, and instruction came from St. Paul, the author of the Epistle and
Timothy’s teacher. Even if it did say that the Scripture is “sufficient” and
not just “profitable,” it still would not say that the Bible is a complete rule
of Faith, in no need of unwritten apostolic tradition or the authority of the
Church to complement it.
Further, if the argument is that the Bible is sufficient for
the man of God that he “may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works,” then
I advance that one doesn’t even need Scripture for that, since some men of God
were promised their perfection (salvation) without the Bible: “Moreover,
brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also
ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep
in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I
delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ
died for our sins according to the scriptures.” (1 Cor. 15: 1-3) The
Corinthians are promised salvation if they remain true to St. Paul’s preaching . The Scriptures (Old
Testament) are invoked only to substantiate that preaching. Certainly St. Stephen, whose martyrdom was recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles didn’t need the book of Acts, or the epistles of the yet
unconverted Paul, to achieve his salvation. Since there is no place in the Bible where it states that
the Bible alone is the sole source of Christian doctrine, then the doctrine of
sola scriptura is not biblical. It is, in fact, even by the Protestant standard
of sola scriptura , not Christian doctrine. Ironic, isn’t it?
Oral Teaching
There are many places in the Bible, where an inspired author
commands the readers to obey his preaching. The author states that his
teachings are from God. The teachings are not specifically disclosed in the
Bible, but only referred to; however, the readers are still commanded to
believe and teach them. Here is one such passage, again from
St. Paul to Timothy: “And the things that
thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful
men, who shall be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)
St. Paul here commands Timothy to teach “the
things that thou hast heard.” That is oral teaching. It is passed on to other
men (tradere , in Latin, from which we get the word “tradition” means “to pass
on”). These other men will, in turn, teach others. This is oral Tradition, the
very thing Protestants protest. The typical Protestant answer to this is that all of these
teachings of the Apostles made their way into the Bible. The problem with this
argument is that the Bible does not say that all of the teachings of
St. Paul are found in the
Bible. If the Bible does not say it, then the teaching authority of man is
relied upon in matters of Christian doctrine. That, of course, is a
contradiction of sola scriptura . A similar passage is 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “Therefore,
brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught,
whether by word, or our epistle.” As their Apostle,
St. Paul commands the Thessalonians to
believe what he has taught them, not only by his epistles to them, but by his
words, which he preached to them. Again, the same argument as above applies:
There is no evidence that these teachings are found explicitly in the Bible.
Doctrinal Authority
Aside from the rejection of oral Tradition, sola scriptura
also carries with it the idea of the sufficiency of Scripture to be understood,
without a teaching authority to properly interpret it. As Dr. Godfrey said above,
all things necessary are “taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary
believer to find it there and understand.” Therefore, the need of divinely
appointed teachers, of a doctrinally authoritative Church, is absent in the
Protestant system. A necessary note of explanation has to be included here.
What do I mean by “doctrinally authoritative”? This is important, since it is a
major point in this article, and a major hole in the belief system of
Protestantism. What I mean is this: A doctrinally authoritative Church has a
divinely given power to (1) demand belief of its members in certain doctrines
and (2) forbid its members to believe certain other doctrines. (These latter
doctrines are called heresies .) The ones doing the forbidding and demanding –
the ones who exercise authority – are men. Protestantism rejects such an authoritative Church, but the
doctrinal system disclosed in the Bible is the Catholic one and not the
Protestant one.
Before discussing the existence of the Church’s power to demand
/ forbid belief, I will establish the general inequality of believers: St. Paul
clearly marks out that not every believer has the same authority: “And God hath
set some in the church , first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly
teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments,
diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?
Are all workers of miracles?” (1 Corinthians 12: 28-29) And again: “And he gave
some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors
and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
for the edifying of the body of Christ .” (Ephesians 4: 11-12) In the above passages, I italicized two phrases: in the
church and for the edifying of the body of Christ . These phrases show over
whom the authority is exercised: men in the Church, which is the body of
Christ. For the present purposes, it does not matter if we use the vague
Protestant definition of “church” or the Catholic definition. In fact, for the
purposes of argument, we will use the generic Protestant definition of church:
“the body of believers.” This definition leads us to this statement: There are
bishops and teachers who have authority in the body of believers.6
Demanding Belief
The three-chapter Epistle of St. Paul to St. Titus contains
St. Paul’s directives to
Titus on how to be a good bishop (the KJV even uses the word “bishop” in 1:7).
St. Paul tells Titus,
“These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority . Let no man
despise thee.” In the first chapter of the same book,
St. Paul tells Bishop Titus to “set in order
the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city.” Paul orders Timothy to teach, and he, in turn, appoints
other men. Among their duties is that of teaching. These ordained men (called
elders, presbyters, or priests) answer to Titus who answers to Paul.
Another verse showing the authority of the Church to teach
is this: “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to
behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15) It is the Church that is the
pillar and ground of the truth, even according to the King James Bible. If the
Church is this pillar, then those who have authority to teach in the Church are
the custodians of truth.
I have asked Fundamentalists and Evangelicals this question,
“What is the pillar and ground of the truth?” Invariably, they answer, “The
Bible.” Then I ask them, “What does the Bible say is the pillar and ground of
the truth?” In the several times I have asked the question (and I only ask it
of Protestants who are trying to use biblical arguments against Catholicism),
not once have I gotten the Biblical answer. Some have denied that it says that
in their Bible. This shows ignorance of the fact that the
Bible portrays a Church that has authority to teach.
Forbidding Belief
Aside from the power to teach doctrines, I mentioned that
the Church has authority to forbid belief. Once again, the Apostle to the
Gentiles comes to our support: In his exhortation to Titus, St. Paul tells him
to “rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed
to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” (Titus
1:13-14) Just what these Jewish fables were does not matter. The point is that
Bishop Titus has authority to condemn error and he is ordered to do so by his
ecclesiastical superior,
St. Paul. To his other subordinate, the Bishop Timothy,
St. Paul writes, “But
shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past
already; and overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Tim. 2: 16-18) Here
St. Paul
condemns a heresy spread by men whom he names. Their words are compared to a
“canker” and their “babblings” Timothy is to “shun.” Later in the same
discourse, Paul warns Timothy about what perverse men will arise, men who are
“ever learning, and never able to come to the truth.” At the climax of this
charge to his disciple, the Apostle says, “Preach the word; be instant in
season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and
doctrine .” The word “rebuke” means, according to Webster’s Dictionary, “To
check, silence, or put down, with reproof; to restrain by expression of
disapprobation; to reprehend sharply and summarily; to chide; to reprove; to admonish.”
In plain language,
St. Paul
is telling Timothy that he has authority to say, “Shut up!” in matters of
doctrine. Naturally, Timothy’s authority is to be respected by those
in his charge, for
St. Paul
said, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they
watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with
joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Hebrews 13:17)
The sola scriptura advocate may claim that the Apostles had
a unique authority to teach truth and condemn error, and so did men like
Timothy and Titus, BUT that all changed when the Bible was written and gathered
together into one book. (You know: when men gave us the table of contents!)
After that point, Gospel truth was in the Bible “clearly enough for the
ordinary believer to find it there and understand” without a doctrinal
authority over him. If the Protestant says that, he has another contradiction:
The Bible doesn’t say that! There is no passage in the Bible which says that
after the Bible is codified, there will be no men with doctrinal authority in
the Church. So again, by his own standards, the Protestant is unbiblical.
What Early Christians Believed
“The Catholic Church’s rule of faith consists of the Bible,
Tradition and a teaching Church. The Church Fathers unanimously affirm this
three-fold rule of faith.”7 What follows are passages from the writings of
Early Christians, passages which illustrate their belief in this three-fold
rule, contrary to the sola scriptura doctrine of the Protestants. The reader is
asked to note how the Fathers used some of the passages in
St. Paul just as I used them earlier. This
listing is not by any means complete. The passages cited here are from Cor Unum
Apologetics Web Site , Joseph Gallegos, webmaster
(http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/ ).
St. Hilary of Poitiers
(+368 ) – “It behooves us not to withdraw from the CREED which we have
received… nor to back off from the faith which we have received through the
prophets … or to back-slide from the Gospels. Once laid down, it continues even
to this day through the TRADITION of the FATHERS” (Ex. Oper. Hist. Fragment 7,
3 )
St. Athanasius (+373) , who defended the divinity of Christ
against the Arian heretics) – “We are PROVING that THIS view has been
TRANSMITTED from FATHER to FATHER, but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of
Caiphas, how many FATHERS CAN YE ASSIGN to your phrases? Not one of the
understanding and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is
your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed
of this IRRELIGION, and now persuades you to slander the ECUMENICAL Council,
for committing to writing, not YOUR doctrines, but that which from the
BEGINNING those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed
down to us. For the faith which the COUNCIL has confessed in writing, that is
the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the BLESSED FATHERS so
expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy…” (De Decretis 27 )
“We are content with the fact that this is not the teaching
of the Catholic Church, nor did the Fathers hold this.” (Epis. 59 )
“But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of
unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, BUT DO NOT hold such
opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions
of men, err, because they DO NOT rightly KNOW THEM nor their power.” (Festal
Letter 2 )
“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very
TRADITION, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was
preached by the Apostles and PRESERVED by the FATHERS. On this the CHURCH was
founded; and if anyone departs from THIS, he neither is, nor any longer ought
to be called, a Christian.” (Ad Serapion 1, 28 )
St. Basil (+379 , who defended the divinity of the Holy
Ghost against the Pneumatomachians) – “Let us now investigate what are our common
conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us
from Holy Scripture, AS WELL those which have been gathered concerning it, as
those which we have RECEIVED from the UNWRITTEN tradition of the Fathers” (Holy
Spirit 22 )
“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or
enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written
teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the Apostles by the
tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have
the same force.” (Holy Spirit 27 )
“For I HOLD IT APOSTOLIC TO ABIDE BY THE UNWRITTEN
TRADITIONS. ‘I praise you,’ it is said, ‘that ye remember me in all things, and
keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you;’ and ‘Hold fast the
traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.’ One of
these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who
ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their
SUCCESSORS, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time.
(Holy Spirit 71 )
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (+386 ) – “But in learning the Faith
and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now DELIVERED TO
THEE by THE CHURCH, AND which has been built up strongly out of all the
SCRIPTURES.” (Catechetical Lectures 5,12 )
Epiphanius of Salamis (+403 ) – “But for all the divine
words, there is no need of allegory to grasp the meaning; what is necessary is
study and understanding to know the MEANING of each statement. We must have
recourse to TRADITION, for all cannot be received from the divine Scriptures.
That is why the holy Apostles handed down certain things in writings but others
by TRADITIONS. As Paul said: ‘Just as I handed them on to you.’” (Panarion 61,6
)
St. John Chrysostom (+407 ) – “‘So then, brethren, stand
fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by
epistle of ours.’ [2 Thess 2:15] Hence it is manifest, that they did not
deliver all things by Epistle, but many things unwritten, and in like manner
both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the
tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no
farther.” (Homily 4 on 2 Thess. )
St. Augustine
(+430 ) – “For MY PART, I should NOT BELIEVE the gospel except moved by the
authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have
consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can
I BUT CONSENT?” (C. Epis. Mani. 5, 6 )
“Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that
the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the
canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it.” (Letter 164 to Evodius of
Uzalis )
“Learn also diligently, and FROM THE CHURCH, WHAT ARE THE
BOOKS of the Old Testaments, and WHAT are the books of the NEW.” (Catechetical
Lectures 5,33 )
St. Vincent of Lerins (+445
) – “When anyone asks one of these heretics who presents arguments: Where are
the proofs of your teaching that I should leave behind the world-wide and
ancient faith of the Catholic Church? He will jump in before you have finished
with the question: ‘It is written.’ He follows up immediately with thousands of
texts and examples…” (Commonit 1, 26 )
“Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the
Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary
to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of
fact, [we must answer] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally
accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted differently by
different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield
as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a
passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and
Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and
Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still
another way, Nestorius. Thus, because of the great distortions caused by
various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation
of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule
of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.” (Commonit 2 )
St. John Damascene (+749 ) – “So, then in expectation of His
coming we worship toward the East. But this tradition of the apostles is
unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten.”
(Orthodox Faith 4,12,16 )
“Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was
unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words:
‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been
taught of us, whether by word or epistle’ And to the Corinthians he writes,
‘Now I praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the
traditions as I have delivered them to you.’” (Orthodox Faith 4,16 )
If you have lasted this long reading this entry, I truly congratulate you. It is not my intent to begin an argument of be divisive. However, many have asked me why I became Catholic. It is my hope that the entries I write will hope those who know me better understand. Through all of this, to God be the Glory.
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam
