Sola Scriptura, a Brief Defense

I may consider posting some of this on OpenApology at some point, but for not I’ll leave it open for comment here. Ash of The Christian Example has posted an apologetics challenge, pretty much just for me. I had requested it, I suppose, so I’ll do my best to reply.

The following challenge, as Ash also noted, represents an attack on one of the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity, that being the sufficiency and final authority of the Holy Bible, plus or minus nothing. It comes in the form of a letter, which I will blockquote as I respond to it.

This is an open letter to all Protestants who hold to the heretic belief called Sola Scriptura or Scripture alone. Don’t you know that this belief is illogical. It cannot stand up to scrutiny and I would ask that you take a look at what I write here where I will disprove this heresy and present the truth of the Church that Christ established 2000 years ago, the Holy and apostolic Catholic Church.

I’m not sure who wrote the letter, nor do I know how much training this apologist has. Unlike the apologist, I cannot say I will prove my position; however, I hope to show that the Roman Catholic position falls more easily under scrutiny than does the Protestant.

First and foremost, I would like to ask where exactly in your bible does it teach Sola Scriptura? Most Protestants quote from 2 Timothy 3:15-16 but this is not a claim that the bible is the only infallible rule of faith but that it is a rule of faith and not the only one.

Psalm 33:4 emphatically states that “the word of the LORD is right.” Both Protestants and Roman Catholics believe that the Bible is the Word of God; therefore, it is right. Ergo, it cannot be wrong. If it cannot be wrong, it is the rule, the authority by which anything else can be judged.

Romans 3:4 says to “let God be true, but every man a liar.” I trust the Bible to be true because it was both inspired and preserved by God, who is true. Also, we see that “every man [is] a liar”; if that is so, woe to any faith which sets men up as an authority like unto the Word of God.

And of course, let’s look at 2 Timothy 3:15-16, which the apologist explicitely mentions: “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

  • For doctrine … If the Bible teaches a doctrine, it is correct in that regard, and it is profitable to learn from for it. If a doctrine contradicts that which is presented in the Word, remember that “the word of the LORD is right.”
  • For reproof … The word translated “reproof” here also means “conviction” or “evidence.” The Word is profitable as evidence for truth and for conviction concerning it. The Word produces faith, which is taught in Romans 10:17.
  • For correction … If all Scripture is profitable for correction because it was given by God, then what can there be which can correct the Scriptures? If one can use the Scriptures to correct the Roman Catholic Church, it is their responsibility to bow in submission to the Word, not vise versa. “The word of the LORD is right…”
  • For instruction in righteousness … If we want to know what to do to live right, we need only turn to the Scriptures. And what says them? We are given the righteousness of Christ when we believe on Him, not because of any sacramental duties which we may have to perform.

If we look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we can see that Sola Scriptura holds no water:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

It is important to note that at the time Paul penned this, the Scriptures were yet to be completed. Further, Paul says that which is being passed along to the Thessalonians was coming from the Apostles: “we passed on to you,” he states. He also implies that the teachings of his letters would coincide with the word of mouth teachings, and that both should be heeded.

I am not saying that teachings cannot be passed verbally–bishops, teachers, etc. do that often. However, if there is no guiding rule, changes can be made. Within the Roman Catholic Church, they set themselves up as the rule, and thus became free to interpret the true rule of the Scriptures any way which suited them. Thus, the Scriptures only serve as a brief preface on Catholic doctrine, with the catechism being the true rule. And were it authoritative, it would have no need of change.

If we were to “try the spirits, whether they are of God” based upon verbal hearing only, who’s do we try it by? There may be multiple voices teaching various things within one assembly, and only one of them may be true. On what authority do we say that one is true and the others are liars? “The word of the LORD is right.”

Take a good look at what is being said, the teachings of the apostles were passed on in written form and oral form. This passage gives equal authority to both forms of the revelation. It is the complete revelation not only half like the Protestats do. This is all given to the Church and the successors to Peter, the first Pope. As the Catechism says:

85″The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

1) There is no evidence, either Scriptural or historical, outside of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that Peter ever had a successor, nor did Jesus or the Apostles or any of the writers of Scripture ever even hint at an apostolic succession. To the popes who elevate themselves to a position as vicar (“in place of”) of Christ, I can only say, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” In the Catholic tradition, that phrase was spoken to the supposed first pope Peter by the Lord Himself. It seems only appropriate that all of the so-called successors be reminded of their position.

2) If spiritual things are spiritually discerned, what need of we of a physical organization to discern them for us? The Holy Spirit is more than enough help for me to read my Bible.

You see friend it’s quite obvious that the Catholic Church gave you Protestants your bible. The canon was determined, in it’s authority given by Christ, by the Catholic church at the council, the synod of Carthage in A.D. 397 where the list of the books in the bible were established. Without the authority of the Church you wouldn’t even have a bible.

Actually, the Roman Catholics had very little to do with my Bible. The canon was long in use before any Roman Catholic counsel decided on it. Further, the canon they decided upon include a myriad of books which contradict the rest yet lend a hand to the heresies of the Catholic Church.

Again, it is God who preserves His Word throughout all generations; He does not need the help of any liar (i.e., man).

The truth is, this doctrine does nothing more than divide. Why do you think there is more than 28,000 protestant denominations in America alone? All hold to this doctrine and look at the division. If we now take a look at the Catholic Church, we see that we are united by our successor to Peter, Pope Benedict and the Church. You see, without someone with authority like the Holy Father and the magesterium to interpret scripture and tradition, we end up with chaos like in Protestantism. All authority was given to Peter and his successors (Matt 16:17-20) to lead the Church of Christ and protect it from heretics like Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Evangelism itself divides, as Paul noted when certain believers started segregating based on their favorite preachers, Paul or Apollos or Christ. Does that make evangelism wrong? No.

Further, it should be noted that the Roman Catholic Church has taken a rather heavy-handed approach at keeping its doctrine “pure” and its people “in line.” Those who disagreed were met with hangings, burnings, war, or torture.

Many divisions amongst non-Catholic churches are not because of sola scriptura; rather, they are because people have a hard time believing the Scriptures. I’m sure it is easier with a vicar and his colleagues saying, “There is no need to study for yourselves.” Protestants do not have that luxury, nor do we desire it. There are going to be differences in the church; that is spoken of in Scriptures. What is important is that the Gospel is spread. The Roman Catholic Church fails in that regard, which, I’m sorry to say, is damnable.

And nowhere does Matthew state that Jesus gave any kind of authority to Peter or his successors; rather, He stated that on the rock of the truth of His being the Son of God He would build His church. The gates of Hell prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church the moment man set himself in the place of Christ; the gates of Hell have yet to prevail against the Gospel. That distinction proves what Christ was talking about.

I hope you will consider turning from this damaging belief and turning to the Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church in which our Lord established 2000 years ago.

Trace the Church back as far as you wish; there are many more heresies which have been around longer, but duration does not authority make. If the Roman Catholic Church, its dogma, and its practices cannot stand up to the simple primary texts (the New Testament, which predate any Roman Catholic writings and include writings of the “first pope” Peter), it must be dismissed as being in error.

The Scriptures are right, and they do not change. The Roman Catholic Church has changed many times, including repenting of earlier error or moving into new ones.

“For the word of the LORD is right…”

8 thoughts on “Sola Scriptura, a Brief Defense”

  1. Not to butt into this quarrel, but I was struck by this phrase:

    Psalm 33:4 emphatically states that “the word of the LORD is right.â€? Both Protestants and Roman Catholics believe that the Bible is the Word of God; therefore, it is right. Ergo, it cannot be wrong. If it cannot be wrong, it is the rule, the authority by which anything else can be judged.

    That is what logicians refer to as a “black and white fallacy”. It presumes that the Bible is either 100% literally true or completely false, with no room for shades of grey. It is completely possible for a document to contain both truths and falsehoods, without being 100% true or 100% false. Therefore, your argument (which is based upon the premise that no such middle ground exists) fails. Not that I’m a Roman Catholic, but you can’t use that kind of blatant fallacy and not expect someone to pick up on it.

  2. Tis only a fallacy if there is no belief or trust in the God presented by Scripture. And frankly, if the Bible isn’t 100% truth, it becomes as meaningless as every other religious text out there.

    Even taken as a work of fiction, it would be wrong to edit out what you don’t agree with or say that isn’t the way the story happened. I don’t read “Romeo and Juliet” and end with them both alive, so why read the Bible and end with man creating his own utopia and Mohammed leading someone into Heaven?

    And if it is more than a work of fiction, it ought to be trusted even moreso.

    Further, it would be impossible to divide what is true and what is assumed false in the Scriptures. Groups have done so (i.e., the Jesus Seminar), but always to support their own whims, and no unchanging authority to back them up in doing so.

    Again, as the Scriptures testify of themselves… Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass away, and would even outlast the Heavens and Earth. Paul said that all Scripture is given by the breath of God, not just some of it. The Psalmist records that God would preserve His Word forever and ever. In multiple places, it is emphatically stated that God does not and cannot lie.

    – If God cannot lie…
    — If God inspired all Scriptures…
    — If God forever preserves the Scriptures…
    — The Scriptures must therefore be as true as He…
    – The Scriptures must therefore be as eternal as He…

    How many of the foundational assumptions can be denied before the person who supposedly believes the Bible ceases believing the Christian God?

    While I assert that a person may be saved with but a tiny bit of faith in Christ, it is difficult to imagine anyone maturing spiritually too much while denying whole biblical truths. To deny them is to deny the very things which brought salvation.

  3. Tis only a fallacy if there is no belief or trust in the God presented by Scripture.

    I suggest you study the principles of logic, my friend. It is a fallacy regardless of whether you believe in God. Even if we presume that there was a God who inspired all Scriptures, there is no need to believe that the men who heard the words, passed them down from generation to generation verbally, and then eventually committed them to paper did not adulterate them with their influence.

    – If God cannot lie…
    — If God inspired all Scriptures…
    – If God forever preserves the Scriptures…
    — The Scriptures must therefore be as true as He…
    – The Scriptures must therefore be as eternal as He…

    Logically, someone can believe in the first two premises without necessarily accepting the third premise, hence the last two conclusions are not necessary.

    While I assert that a person may be saved with but a tiny bit of faith in Christ, it is difficult to imagine anyone maturing spiritually too much while denying whole biblical truths. To deny them is to deny the very things which brought salvation.

    According to them, faith in Christ brings salvation, and slavish adherence to the details is nothing more than legalism and refusal to admit the flaws of the Bible. Why is your point of view any more valid than theirs?

  4. If one believes the first two premises, one must believe the third, otherwise one of the first two is not actually believed…

    The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6,7

    Even if one were to limit “the words of the LORD” to those Scriptures which the Psalmist would have been familiar with, that would include the Books of Moses primarily, which themselves still teach every major doctrine of Christianity, including picturing nearly the complete life and ministry of Jesus Christ through “types” such as the Temple, Ark, or Tabernacle.

    “Slavish adherance” isn’t what God asks for. As our Savior, as our Father, we owe Him everything, and out of love and thanksgiving, we serve, not because we have to but because we want to. Serving faithfully here will result in rewards there. A person who is satisfied with the mustard-seed-sized faith that leads them to salvation and never progresses beyond that will suffer loss in Heaven.

    The validity of any of my beliefs stem from the authority of Scripture itself; I believe what it says. If one freely misuses it, picks only what they want to believe, or otherwise casts doubt upon its sufficiency, they are setting themselves up as their own authority. A dangerous position, for the way which seems right to men leads to death.

  5. If one believes the first two premises, one must believe the third, otherwise one of the first two is not actually believed…

    Umm, Rick … do you realize that the infallibility of that Scriptural reference is dependent upon the very assumption that you’re trying to prove by quoting it? This is the kind of quick resort to circular logic which I’ve mentioned before.

  6. If the first two are true, how can the second be untrue? I’m not following that logic.

    And yes, it is circular logic to say “The Bible is true because the Bible says so.” Fine, so be it. If simple logic were enough, God wasted a lotta breath teaching on belief.

  7. If the first two are true, how can the second be untrue? I’m not following that logic.

    OK, let’s go over this: the first two premises are that God does not lie, and that God inspired the Bible. But inspiring something and guaranteeing its integrity are two entirely different things. If I tell you something which is true, and inspire you to write it down, this does not guarantee that you will accurately transcribe what I’ve told you, particularly if you don’t write it down right away.

    Let’s suppose I tell you a completely true and accurate story today. You are inspired to write this down. But the problem is that you don’t write it down until 30 years from now. Between now and then, you keep it in your memory. Now are you going to tell me that my honesty and inspiration today will somehow guarantee the accuracy of your memory for the next 30 years, so that when you finally write it down, it will be correct? Every study of human memory has shown that it is a highly inaccurate device, easily influenced by bias and confusion even over the short term. Over the long term, human memory alone is almost a joke in terms of accuracy.

    Now apply this to the Bible, which was initially passed down as a verbal tradition rather than a written one, and whose events were not transcribed to paper until decades (or in some cases, centuries or even millenia) after they supposedly happened. Have you ever played the “telephone game” in school? The accuracy of this process is virtually guaranteed to be horrible, even if you accept the premises that it was initially honest.

    And yes, it is circular logic to say “The Bible is true because the Bible says so.â€? Fine, so be it. If simple logic were enough, God wasted a lotta breath teaching on belief.

    If you are willing to concede that you are being illogical, that’s fine. I have no problem with that. But then you shouldn’t dress up your beliefs in the guise of arguments, which are always supposed to be logical. Instead of saying “this is true because [blah blah blah]” you should say “I can’t give you a reason; I just believe it is true”. That would be more honest. The minute you say “because”, you are implying that there is a logical reason, and we both know there isn’t one.

  8. you know, the other thing that is interesting to me here is that if you go back far enough, the Catholic church isn’t the “original” church from which all others came–the Orthodox church is.

    I’m not saying this is cause enough to become Orthodox–just an interesting point I’d be curious to hear about from the writer you referenced here.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

the Rick Beckman archive
Scroll to Top