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.  

The Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth

Well, thanks to Facebook, I've been involved in another bizarre "conversation" that, while weird and frustrating at times (and which, in the end resulted in my being ejected from the discussion and blocked from the page), was still quite informative.

For starters, this particular conversation grew over an argument about whether or not Jesus is God. For a while, I watched from the comfort of the sidelines as the parties of both camps threw scripture verses out there, each side refuting the interpretation of the other side's scriptures. When that didn't work each side resorted to throwing out his own version of this particular appeal: "if you would just look at the clear and unambiguous words of Scripture, you would see the truth."

Aaaah, that sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? It's an appeal to common sense. It's a "come, let us reason together" moment. It seems like the way to solve the problem: let's just go to the text, say a little prayer for guidance, read the words, shake hands and walk away united. It should work, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't. Sure it seems reasonable, but that's as far as it goes. Deep down, it's fundamentally flawed thinking.

The problem isn't with the words of scripture, per se. It's the meaning those words are imbued with. In the argument I was watching unfold, both camps took the same words and each read remarkably different ideas into them--contradictory ideas in fact. Their own ideas.

Neither side could understand how the other could not read their particular proof texts and not come away convinced. And so, inevitably, the conversation devolved into who's led by the Holy Spirit and who's a servant of Satan.

As the opinions piled up and the number of posts increased, we "learned" that everyone's level of spirituality was directly related to the strength of his agreement with either of the two sides. For example, if you happened to agree with Side A, then Side A thought you were a Saint--a Biblical scholar of staggering proportions. However, side B typically thought you were a rube. On the other hand, if you, by chance, should agree with Side B, well then, it was clear (to Side B) that you were a powerful theologian--a visionary, able to cut through the clutter, lucidly beholding (and expounding upon) great spiritual mysteries. Unfortunately, Side A comfortably and knowingly assumed you were going to hell.

And all of this occurs because the Bible is exceedingly clear and unambiguous in all matters, right? And we'll know we're right because we know we're led by the Holy Spirit--and that's His job, right? To lead us into all truth? And even though the other people we encounter may SAY they're led by the Holy Spirit, we'll know whether or not that's true by this simple litmus test: do they agree with what we say Scripture says? If they agree, they pass and are clearly spirit led and are brothers and sisters who should be embraced. If they disagree with our positions--and since we KNOW we are spirit-led--we therefore know that they are . . . yes, you guessed it: Devil Spawn. Satan's Emissaries. Servants of Beelzebub.

Now, I'm not here to knock the Bible in any regard. The Bible is the written word of God, handed down to us through the Apostles and various followers of our Lord. The Bible is a tremendous gift from God to the world. And yet, nowhere in the Bible do we read that the Bible is the SOLE rule of faith. In fact, we read in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" is the Church of Jesus Christ--not a written word. In fact, Paul's passage reads as such:

¹⁴ Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, ¹⁵ if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Paul WRITES Timothy instructions (the written WORD of God), but he doesn't tell Timothy that these writings are the pillar and foundation of the truth. That position is reserved for the Church of the Living God. The writings are instructional and helpful and definitely important--but they are not the Pillar and Bulwark or foundation of the truth. No writing can be that since the writing itself requires interpretation. The only entity that can provide interpretation is a teaching authority: the Church.

I would love to believe that the Holy Spirit leads each of us to understand Scripture for ourselves in ALL MATTERS. I would love to believe that we're all equally valid interpreters of the Word. It's a nice idea. It puts a lot of power in our hands. If it's true, we're all theologians, we're all experts on doctrine, we're all Doctors of the Church.

But if it is true, why is there so little consistency? If the Holy Spirit is leading us all, why is there so much variance in our beliefs? And we must be careful not to opt for the "easy-out" answer--the answer given almost everytime this question is asked: "we disagree in non-essentials, but in essentials, there's unity."

Really? Is the Spirit so weak? He's only able to persuade unity in certain doctrines, but other things are outside of his control? He is said to lead into ALL truth and yet, we so often are willing to accept just some.

So why aren't we united? It's what Jesus wanted. Why can't the Holy Spirit pull it off? If the original plan of God was to give us the Bible and then provide the Holy Spirit who would lead us (each one, separately) into all truth, then why in the world hasn't it happened? Human error? Human sin? These are things God didn't foresee?

God knew the system of personal interpretation would be flawed, would lead to much disunity, many arguments and widespread division, but He proceeded with it anyway just because He couldn't come up with a better idea? Does that makes sense?

But what if we're wrong about this notion? What if we're incorrect about God's plan regarding the Bible and the teaching of truth? What if He never meant each one of us to pick it up and find out the truth for ourselves all by ourselves? What if He established an authority--a teaching authority--a pillar and foundation of the truth? What if this was the authority who would be led by the Holy Spirit and pass on the teachings of the Lord accurately? What if this authority was created in order to teach infallibly and guide the faithful?

If we can believe that the Holy Spirit can guide each of us personally into all truth, preserving us from error, is it such an impossibility to think that He could do the same with the Church?