Problems with Sola Scriptura

"Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.  Sola Scriptura demands that only those doctrines to be admitted or confessed are doctrines found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture."

This is one of the foundational principles of the reformation and yet, it cannot possibly be God's plan for Christianity.

Here's why:

• The first book of the New Testament is 1st Thessalonians and was written around AD 52.   The resurrection occurred around AD 33 or so, meaning that the first Christians had not even a single writing from the New Testament upon which to base their faith for the first 15 - 20 years.

• The last books of the New Testament to be written were penned between AD 95-110.  So, again, before early Christians could go to the Bible to find the doctrines necessary for salvation, they had to wait almost 70 or so years after Jesus died just to have the texts (that, again, contained everything they needed to know for salvation) written.

• The first recorded list of proposed books for the New Testament came about in AD 130-140.  Marcion of Sinope, rejecting entirely the "God of the Old Testament" and the Jewish Scriptures, proposed a list of books that he regarded as fully authoritative.  His list included 10 Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Luke (devoid of any reference to Old Testament Scriptures).  It's interesting that if Sola Scripture were truly the foundational doctrine the reformers suggested, why did it take so long before someone actually proposed a list of books?  If this was truly what believers needed as a true guide--the only guide--then why did even a faulty, scant version of this list take so long to create?

• The complete Canon of Scripture wasn't compiled until almost AD 400.  While there were many lists of "the books of the New Testament" these lists (as we just demonstrated) were often incomplete or, in some cases, included extra works that were later considered "apocryphal" (the Gospel of Thomas, for example).  At any rate, the complete list of New Testament books that we possess today wasn't agreed upon by the entire Church until roughly AD 400, meaning that for nearly 370 years, Christians were unable to know that what they were studying was something that could even by rights be called Scripture. 

• Once the canon was compiled, the production of Bibles was still time-consuming and costly.  It's estimated that the production of a single Bible in the early years of Christianity up until the invention of the printing press could cost anywhere from 1-3 years' wages.  For one Bible.  If Sola Scriptura and the possession of a Bible by every believer was God's plan, why did God wait so long to inspire the printing press?  Why would God create a system for knowing Him--Sola Scriptura--that couldn't be fully implemented until the invention of the printing press?

• Even after the printing press, not everybody could read.  The internet has made available--at our fingertips--books written in all kinds of languages.  Hungarian for example.  I purchased a Hungarian Bible a few years ago for a friend.  When it was delivered, I discovered upon opening it, that I couldn't read it.  The mere availability of the book in Hungarian did not--obviously--instill within me the ability to read Hungarian.  Likewise, illiterate people with a book, even if that book is a Bible, still can't read it.  The words still look like gibberish and scratchings.  So, for Sola Scriptura to make any sense as a foundational principle for knowing God, we would need, not just the printing press and readily available Bibles, but also the ability to read (and understand) the written word.  Even today, we don't have a universal ability to read and comprehend.  So, once again, God's system--if it is His, which begins to seem more and more doubtful--is flawed.

Now, it could be argued that Sola Scriptura doesn't so much mean that we need to, each one of us, possess a Bible of our own.  Rather, it could mean that we simply look to the Bible as the source for every doctrine we believe in.  If the doctrine's not there, (explicitly or deducible by "valid" logic), then we shouldn't believe it.  

Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with this reasoning as well:

• Who determines what's "valid logic" and what's not?  I know this sounds silly and we're all tempted to say "clearly, valid logic is 'X' and clearly 'Y' is not valid."  But if it were really that easy, then there would be no disagreements in the world, right?  Look at politics.  Two sides can look at the same issue and see "valid" logic in opposite determinations.  Religion is another topic that necessarily produces wide-ranging opinions and conclusions.  Often, what's valid logic to one party is invalid to another.  Which brings us back to the question:  who determines what's a valid teaching and what's not?  Is it the majority?  What if the majority changes over time?  Does the truth then change with it?  Clearly, that can't be the case.  Yet, if every believer has the right and authority and duty to examine the scriptures using "valid" logic, we're going to end up with a wide-range of opinions as to what the Truth really is.

• Who determines what's explicitly taught?  OK, so maybe extrapolating the teachings of the Bible that aren't clearly taught is complicated as we saw above.  But what about those things explicitly taught?  Surely, those are clear and beyond question?  Not really.  Look at baptism as just one example.  Some groups believe that baptism is clearly taught in scripture as necessary for salvation.  Other groups believe that baptism is a "sign and seal" of a Christian's new commitment to Christ.  Basically, it's a good thing to do, but not necessary.  Still other groups believe that baptism by water is not even necessary as a "sign and seal"--instead, we are baptized by the Spirit.  To take it still further, ask a wide range of Christians who the Bible teaches should be baptized and you'll receive an equally wide range of answers.  Some will say infants.  Others will say only believers who've repented.  Ask again about the method and you'll hear immersion, sprinkling, no water necessary and so on.  And after all of these answers, it will be argued that the Bible is explicitly clear.

• Where does the Bible say such a thing?  No matter how we scour the Bible, we're never going to find a command in the Bible that says that the Bible (or scripture) alone should be used to determine all of the doctrine we believe as Christians.  Basically, the Bible doesn't proclaim the doctrine of the Bible alone.  This is a problem because how can we adopt the doctrine of "the Bible alone" if the Bible doesn't teach us to adopt the doctrine of "the Bible alone".  The Bible says that scripture is important and necessary, but it doesn't say that scripture is all we need.  Instead, we read in 1 Timothy 3:15:  "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."  (Notice, the Bible says that the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church of the living God, not scripture).

Basically, much more could be said, but it doesn't take long to see that "the Bible alone" just doesn't work in practice.  Now, being raised to believe that the Bible alone is all we needed, I know how horrible it sounds to hear someone say that we can't go by the Bible alone.  But that's not what's intended.  No disrespect is meant to the position and role of Scripture.  However, it's important to put Scripture in the place and let it play the role that God intended.  To give it a lesser place is wrong.  But to elevate it beyond it's place is also wrong--and equally likely to result in mistaken doctrine.

BOOK REVIEW: Radio Replies, Vols I, II and III

For something different, I'd like to highlight what have to be three of the best books I've ever read--at least in regards to providing answers about the Catholic Faith.  The 3 Volume Set titled simpy Radio Replies by Father's Leslie Rumble and Charles Carty (Copyright 1942) tackle hard-hitting questions about the Catholic Faith.

The books are well-indexed and can be read cover to cover, browsed, or used as research tools to discover quick insights into Catholic thought on anything--and I mean ANYTHING.  The index in Volume 3 includes, for example, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Protestant Bibles, Marriage and Divorce, The Existence of God, Hell, Egyptian Mythology, The Problem of Evil, The Fall of the Angels and hundreds of other topics.

The questions were gathered by Fathers Rumble and Carty for use on their radio show and were submitted by Catholics, Protestants, Athiests and everybody in between.  There are very few softball questions and no cheap answers.  Logic, reasoning, faith and tradition are woven seamlessly into every answer.  It's not always easy to accept the good Fathers' answers without getting a little frustrated, a little angry (especially if you're on the non-Catholic side of the fence), but while the answers are clear-cut and offer no apologies, neither are they condescending, cutting or cruel.  They're grown-up answers for grown-up seekers who are able to absorb a few theological blows without breaking into tears and running for cover.

Excerpt from Radio Replies, Volume 3:

511:   We Protestants believe that each man should read the Bible for himself and accept the truth he discovers in its pages.

That is an unsound principle.  Many men fail to understand the true meaning of the Bible, and still more read wrong meanings into it.  Thus St. Peter says that there are many things in Scripture hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction.  The very fruits of such private interpretation should be sufficient proof that God could never have intended such a method.  For men have made the Bible support the most opposite doctrines and have established hundreds of distinct and irreconcilable sects, each claiming to represent the true religion of Christ.  God could never have intended a principle which would lead to such chaos.

927:  Surely the doctrine of hell is hard to believe even by Catholics.

It is no more difficult than any other revealed mystery of the Christian religion.  If a man can believe in the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, or the Blessed Sacrament, he can just as easily believe in hell.  He has exactly the same motive for doing so, the authority of God for its existence.  Hell is as much a mystery of faith as any other revealed mystery.  We have to believe in it as God knows it to be, not as we imagine it to be.  As we can state simply that there are three Persons in one God without fully comprehending the complete significance of the doctrine, so we know that there is a possible final and eternal wreckage called hell.  But the nature of hell, and its reconciliation with all the attributes of God, are beyond our comprehension.  That however, does not justify us in denying the knowledge and veracity of Christ.  Our faith in Him compels us to believe in hell; and our belief in hell inspires us with a dread of sin.  You will notice that I say our faith in Christ compels us to believe in hell.  We look, not at the thing we are asked to believe but at the knowledge and veracity of the Christ who tells us to believe it.  The only really valid argument against hell would be to prove that Christ did not teach it, or that He did not know what He was talking about, or that He deliberately lied.  That our limited minds find difficulty in comprehending hell is no argument against it.  We expect that, in the presence of a mystery of faith.

The books are currently out of print, but can be picked up on Ebay and they're well worth the $45 or so you'll have to pay.  If you're interested in understanding true Catholicism and not the mush you may think is Catholicism, these are incredibly valuable resources.

UPDATE:  9/16/12:
I've just discovered that these books are available on Kindle and Nook...for $.99.  That is truly an amazing deal--less than 1 dollar for all three volumes in one, easy-to-read, electronic edition.  It's an absolute must-have.  You can find them under the Radio Replies title or by searching for author Leslie Rumble.  

Par for the Course

Question:  So you think the Catholic Church is right on EVERYTHING it teaches?  I don't know how you can say that--it sounds very "cultish" to me.

 

The above was said to me a couple of weeks ago by a friend who stood there with wide eyes and a slight upward turn at the corners of his open mouth.  He was literally astounded that I was willing to "go out on a limb" and claim that the Catholic Church is correct in all of her official teachings--that, in fact, she cannot err.  To him, such a claim was so preposterous that it could only be made by the brainwashed member of some insidious cult.

His stance on this issue is really quite interesting and is worth breaking down and analyzing because it exposes a very bizarre logic at work.

When you look closely, you see that my claim that the Catholic Faith is 100% correct in it's teaching and doctrine--that it is, in matters of faith and morals, infallible--necessarily, in his opinion makes that same faith faulty, suspect and on par with the groups who indoctrinate their followers, live in compounds, and encourage the emptying of bank accounts into the "Leader's" coffers. 

However, if I'd have claimed the Catholic Faith to be subject to error, that I had no idea how "right" they were on any given subject and that they had no more authority than anybody else, then, by his standards, the Catholic Faith would NOT have been nearly as suspect, faulty or "cultish".  It would simply have been "normal."

The very fact that I claim that it's right, necessarily means, in his opinion, that it's wrong.   However, if I'd claim that it was wrong on certain things--perhaps many--that would have freed my friend's conscience enough that he could, without guilt, conclude that it may be OK afterall.   

That's unusual reasoning to say the least, but I understand where it comes from.  Many in the Protestant world are completely unfamiliar with the concept of 100% accuracy in faith and morals.  We (I say "we" as I haven't officially left this world, yet) would rather cling to a notion of "fundamentals"--those basic or core beliefs that all faiths must hold in order to be deemed truly "Christian".  Get these things "right" and you're OK--and all the other stuff is just extra.  It's fluff.  To claim 100% accuracy in teachings is, however, as my friend said, bordering on brainwashed.

And yet, is it really impossible to believe that the Church of God could be infallible?  Now, I'm not dealing with the arguments or questions of whether the Catholic Church is the one Church of God.  I'm not dealing with the question of whether the Catholic Church is in fact infallible.  Those are topics for another post.  What I'm asking here is simply this:  is it impossible--against reason--that the Church of God could be infallible in its Doctrine and Morals?  

I think almost all Christians believe in some concept of infallibility in Christian teachings--we just don't often think of it in those terms.  For example, were the disciples infallible in their teachings?  Not in their actions (as St. Peter demonstrates), but in their teachings--the doctrines they passed on--were they infallible?  Or could they make mistakes?  Could the letters they wrote, which later became the Bible, and the early sermons they preached have been interspersed with error or did the Holy Spirit protect the teaching?

If not--if the Holy Spirit did not ensure their teachings and protect them from error--then how do we know what in the Bible is true and what isn't?  If that's the case, then we can't know anything.  At best, we can hope.  Or believe.  But assurance is out the window.

However, if the Holy Spirit did protect and ensured the accuracy of the teaching, then what was His reason for doing so?  Was it to merely preserve the early believers from being presented a false faith?  Was it only the first generation He was concerned with?  Or is God concerned with all believers through all ages?

If God is not concerned with the spiritual development of all believers through all ages, then we're out of luck in ways we cannot even comprehend.  If God only cared about the spiritual development of first generation or second generation Christians, then He's really no better than a deadbeat dad who spiritually sired a large family and then casually walked away to leave them to fend for themselves.  In short, if God doesn't care about our spiritual development, what hope do we have?

On the other hand, if He is concerned with the spiritual development of all believers through all ages--and all Christians (except maybe the Unitarians) will argue that He is not just concerned, but actively and critically concerned--then isn't it at least possible that He would do something (if He could) to ensure that the faith is handed on accurately and 100% free from error through all those generations?  (After all, what teacher would elect not to deliver lessons that were 100% free from error if it were in her power to do so?)

Now, I think we can all agree that if He can't accomplish that--if it isn't in His power to ensure that the faith is taught accurately and free from error through all generations--then He isn't God and we can quit thinking about all of this because it's a waste of time.

But if He is God as we believe, then nothing is outside of His power and He therefore certainly could preserve His Church through all the ages and ensure that the faith she teaches, from the beginning to the end, from Day One to Day the Last, is the true and infallible, unadulterated faith.

So after all of that, we're left with this:  if God is who He says He is and if He truly is concerned about the  spiritual well-being of all His children, earnestly desiring their salvation, is it really unbelievable that He would take active steps to guarantee the faith?  He died to save us.  Protecting the faith from error would require significantly less effort. 

Again, I'm not arguing right now that the Catholic Church is that Church that Christ established and I'm not arguing that she is infallible (I believe both suppositions, but am not arguing them now).  I'm simply arguing that the notion of infallibility shouldn't surprise Christians.  It shouldn't shock us.  It shouldn't evoke laughter, ridicule or condescension from us.  From the world, yes.  But not from Christians.

If we react to the notion of infallibility in a Church and argue that it's impossible or that anyone who believes such a thing is "drinking the kool-aid", then it's only because we've forgotten the Founder of our Faith.  We've forgotten Christianity wasn't founded by a man or a group of men.  The Christian religion was founded by Jesus Christ.  And Jesus Christ is God.

When we remember that then suddenly Infallibility and Protection from Error and Guarantees and All Truth aren't strange expressions, exceptions to the rule or lofty ideals never to be realized.  When we look to God as the Originator, perfection is just par for the course.

There's Something Biblical About Mary

In studying the Catholic Church for the last couple years or so, I've had many "a-ha" moments: many times when something strange and bizarre suddenly clicked and made sense, times when light dawned and I saw something I'd never seen before.

Many of those moments of shocking, jolting clarity occurred in regards to Mary. I've spent hours writing about them, chronicling them, making notes and trying to relay what I thought was exciting, interesting information to others.

And then I found this video. Which does everything I was trying to do in about 11 minutes. With music. You can't beat that.

”Let those who think that the Church pays too much attention to Mary give heed to the fact that Our Blessed Lord Himself gave ten times as much of His life to her as He gave to His Apostles.” (Archbishop Fulton Sheen)