ARTICLE : The Bible Alone?

The Bible Alone

Private Interpretation & Doctrinal Mayhem

Paul Newcombe

Introduction

Sola Scriptura, as the formal principle of the Protestant reformation, proclaims the Bible to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same. This is contrary to the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and Tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.

Sola Scriptura is a Latin term meaning “scripture alone”. Its very title, used as the standard of the reformation, speaks to the solitude of Scripture as being materially sufficient (i.e., it contains the full council of God) and numerically sufficient (i.e., Scripture alone is God’s word — our absolute source of authority for all doctrine and practice).

Sola scriptura is still a doctrinal commitment of conservative branches of the Lutheran churches, Reformed churches, Baptist churches, and their offshoots, and other Protestants, especially where they describe themselves by the slogan, “Bible-believing.” As with most slogans, the meaning of sola scriptura has been simplified over time. For many Protestants, it has led to the belief that the Bible is the only source of Christian doctrine.

In this more intense form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism in general, however, by no means rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by the Bible.

Catholic objections to sola scriptura can be placed into the following three categories — sola scriptura is unhistorical, unbiblical, and unworkable. The following is a brief summary of these specific reservations.

Sola Scriptura is Unhistorical

If sola scriptura is the foundation of Christian authority for determining Christian truth and practice, one would expect to find it taught throughout the writings of the early Christians. However, as Patrick Madrid informs us:

The fact is, the writings of the Church Fathers and the councils, both regional and ecumenical, reveal that sola scriptura was completely alien to the thought and life of the early Church. Mind you, the early Church placed an exceedingly great emphasis on the importance and authority of Scripture to guide and govern the life of the Church, and Scripture was employed constantly by the Fathers in their doctrinal treatises and pastoral directives. But Scripture was never regarded (or used) by the Church Fathers as something that stands alone, self-sufficient and entirely independent of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.[1]

Occasionally Protestant apologists have attempted to use isolated quotes from early Church fathers which make them appear to propound the “bible alone” theory; however, this is easily surmounted by reading all that each father has to say about Scripture, and Tradition, and the Magisterium. When one does this, it becomes immediately obvious that they knew nothing of the principle of sola scriptura. This type of highly selective quoting relies for its success upon the ignorance of the audience with regard to what these fathers wrote. It is beyond the scope of this booklet to begin a survey of the early church writings, however, for a full examination of the early fathers who lived during the first five centuries after Christ, I recommend reading Robert A. Sungenis’ massive critique of sola scriptura aptly entitled: Not By Scripture Alone, Queenship Publishing, 1997.

Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical

The Westminster Confession explains the traditional Protestant position with regard to the sufficiency of the Bible:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[2]

If this statement is true, then the doctrine of sola scriptura must itself be "expressly set down in Scripture, or ...deduced from Scripture.” And that is the Protestant conundrum. Where is the exclusive infallibility of Scripture taught in Scripture? Where does Scripture point to itself as the exclusive infallible authority for Christian faith and practice? Notice we are not here seeking passages that describe Scripture as authoritative. Every pope in history has taught that the Scriptures are authoritative. No, for sola scriptura to be a biblical doctrine we must locate where the bible describes Scripture as exclusively authoritative.

Protestant apologists have raised a few biblical verses which they appeal to as the hope of sola scriptura. The verse most frequently cited is found in 2 Timothy:

All scripture is inspired by God (Greek: theopneustos = “God breathed”) and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

This verse (when surrounded by positive affirmations) can seem quite convincing at first, however, when examined closely the non-Catholic apologist soon realizes he has bitten of more than he can chew. Firstly, this passage denotes “all” Scripture, not “only” Scripture. When he is told that “all Scripture” is inspired and profitable every Catholic pope grunts a hardy “amen!” However sola scriptura insists upon the exclusivity of Scripture — no tradition, no magisterium. This exclusive principle is completely absent from the teachings of the Bible and 2 Timothy 3:16 does nothing to disprove this Catholic observation. Secondly, when Paul refers Timothy to “scripture”, what is he speaking of? It couldn’t be the New Testament — it hasn’t been written yet! Contextually Paul is referring Timothy to the Old Testament since they are the only Scriptures that formally exist. Even if Paul was speaking about the exclusivity of Scripture, he would be propounding a theory of sola-Old-Testament, a concept not being promoted by any Christian denomination in the twenty first century.

Occasionally Protestants have referred to Matthew 4:1-11 as a means of propping up the “Bible alone” theory. In this passage Jesus rebukes the devil by stating “it is written” followed by quotations taken from Scripture. Since Jesus does not appeal to Church Tradition or the Magisterium it is postulated that Scripture is sufficient to settle all issues. Firstly, at this early stage in the gospel, the Church’s Magisterium has not yet been established by Christ. Secondly, Jesus cites Deuteronomy 8:3 which affirms that “man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Not all of God's words are contained in Scripture, some of God's words come down to us via oral transmission (c.f., Acts 20:27; Gal. 1:11-12, 15-16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:2). Where is the exclusivity of Scripture implied here? Are Christian people who quote Scripture to be immediately regarded as proponents of sola scriptura? Of course not. Why then does Christ’s use of the Old Testament cause him to be labelled as a campaigner for the exclusive authority of the Bible? One is left wondering.

Another passage often cited is found in Revelation 22:

I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book; if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy City described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19).

Protestants sometimes argue that Catholic Tradition is "adding" to Scripture. Notice that this argument relies on “this book” as referring to the entire Bible. Yet what is the context? John could not possibly be thinking about the entire New Testament since it is not compiled into a single volume until the close of the fourth century A.D. Contextually John’s reference to “this book” refers to the book he is currently writing — the book of Revelation. Thus the “adding to Scripture” polemic falls apart.

Enlightening its audience to another important aspect of the “bible alone” theory the Westminster Confession explains, to be divinely revealed, a doctrine must be explicitly expressed or logically implied in Scripture. Scripture, in fact, contains:

“The whole counsel of God… unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”[3]

This, however, creates another problem for the theory of sola scriptura since the Bible does not have an inspired table of contents. Scripture itself does not tell us which books belong to the biblical canon and which books do not. That part of divine revelation — the canon of the Bible — is based purely upon extra-biblical revelation. All Protestant denominations dogmatically proclaim the list of inspired books contained in the New Testament, yet they fail to recognize that this dogma of Christian orthodoxy is a complete product of Christian tradition. In other words, they swing a wide rope. While denying the authority of Catholic tradition Protestants in fact base their entire acceptance of the New Testament canon upon Catholic tradition—specifically the magisterial pronouncements made at the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397A.D. which officially defined the list of inspired books belonging to the New Testament. The decision of this council was ratified by pope Siricius which thus made compulsory the recognition of the New Testament books as the inspired word of God. Was the holy writ itself the definer of the canon? Not at all. As already mentioned, the list of inspired books is not identified by the Scriptures. This Christian dogma is derived exclusively from extra-biblical tradition.

This brings us to another mode of defending sola scriptura — the “all tradition is bad” theory. Quite often, proponents of sola scriptura will say: “Look, Jesus himself condemns tradition in Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-13. He specifically condemns the Pharisees for their ‘traditions of men’ which ‘make null and void’ the commandments of God. With tradition discarded as a means of revelation Christ leaves us with the Bible alone.” What this argument fails to notice is that Jesus condemns corrupt tradition (which he calls “traditions of men”) not all tradition per say. This is confirmed by the regular exhortation of the Apostles encouraging the Christian communities to abide by tradition:

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. (1 Corinthians 11:2).

When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

And what you have heard from me through many witnesses [i.e., what Timothy personally heard Paul preach as well as the oral tradition that had been handed on to Timothy from other Christian leaders] entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2 Timothy 2:2).

Is there more than one type of tradition spoken of in the New Testament? Yes — firstly there are corrupt traditions of men (condemned by Christ), and secondly there are apostolic traditions which were orally preached, exhorted by the Apostles, and require obedience because they constitute part of “the word of God”. The non-Catholic aversion to “tradition” is warranted in some circumstances and misplaced in others. It could be said that Catholics have not added to God’s word by maintaining apostolic tradition, however, Protestants may well be guilty of subtracting from God’s word by refusing to accord proper authority to apostolic tradition. In any case, the “all tradition is bad” theory fails to provide a secure platform from which to launch sola scriptura.

Sola Scriptura is Unworkable

Apart from the unhistorical and unbiblical nature of sola scriptura there are also the practical implications of this theory regarding providing doctrinal certitude and, dare we say it, doctrinal unity. History herself, in no uncertain terms, testifies against the soundness of the Protestant means of determining truth via the bible alone. As noted by Patrick Madrid:

Scripture alone — Scripture forced to stand apart from the infallible teaching magisterium that has been given Christ's own authority to accurately interpret Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, which is the Church's living interpretation of those written words — is unstable and leads to the myriad of conflicting, erroneous, and sometimes spiritually fatal “human traditions” (c.f. Matt. 15:3-9; Mark 7:6-7) that lead people away from Christ. …The history of Protestantism, labouring under sola scriptura, is an unending kaleidoscope of fragmentation and splintering. It cannot provide any sort of doctrinal certitude for the Christian, because it is built on the shifting sand of mere human opinion — what the individual pastor thinks Scripture means.[4]

Private opinion of the written word of God was not the means established to guide God’s people in the Old Testament — no Jew would dream of approaching Moses with the aim of updating his theology in order that Mosaic doctrine might catch up with new “advances” in biblical scholarship: “You know, Moses, after long hours of reading I’ve concluded that the standard interpretation of Exodus 20 is wrong! The context, as I see it, is one of freedom before God. These are really just ten suggestions, not commandments. Those stone tablets represent proposals from God. We shouldn’t be viewing them as strict rules.” Likewise, we don’t see Jewish people stomping off to start their own “true church” elsewhere as a result of their personal views of Scripture. The New Testament period is no different. Neither Old nor New Testament provide a basis for sola scriptura. Sola scriptura has not been associated with the historic Christian faith. And those who have followed this recent theory (developed by Wycliffe, Luther and others) have found themselves swimming through an ocean of subjective biblical opinions. Surely this is not the state Jesus intended for his Church, or the faithful souls gathered therein.

Footnotes:

[1] Madrid, Patrick. Sola Scriptura, a blueprint for anarchy, Eternal Word Television Network. http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT. access date: 9th November 2005.

[2] The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1648, Chapter 1, Of The Holy Scriptures, Section VI.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Madrid, Patrick. Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint For Anarchy. Eternal Word Television Network. http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT, access date: 9th November 2005.