Sola Scriptura: the Bible Alone Theory
By Douglas E. Sparkes
Sola Scriptura means anyone can read the Bible and come away with a clear understanding. It means an infallible teaching authority of God’s inspired word (as in the Catholic Church, it’s Pope and Magisterium) does not exist. It means all the tools necessary and all the instructions necessary for salvation are explained in the pages of the Bible. It means the Bible is clear and self-interpreting. Anybody can grasp and understand it.
In the 1500’s Martin Luther defined and spread the gospel of sola Scriptura and it caught on like a wild fire. Protestantism was born and one thousand five hundred years of universal teaching authority and tradition was dismissed with a stroke of a pen. For many the Catholic Church was dead. The Bible alone became the new sufficient and final means of authority for the faith.
The ramifications of Luther’s theory began to spread immediately and are still spreading today. Within 60 years of Luthor’s posted treatise a book was published listing 200 new interpretations of the last supper. 200 interpretations of what Jesus meant when he said, “This is my body. This is my blood.”*
Since the time of the reformation twenty six thousand different Christian churches have been registered in the United States alone. Every one of them is in someway different from the other churches. Every one of them has a distinct interpretation of Christianity. Every one of them sincerely believes their church correctly interprets the bible and the will of God. The problem, of course, is that they can’t all be right. The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus is God. (If Jesus divinity is not a qualifier for being Christian then Muslims are Christians too, because to them Jesus was not God but he was a prophet). Baptists do not believe in infant Baptism but Lutherans do. Catholics believe the Eucharist they celebrate at Mass is the literal body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ but non-Catholic Christians do not (some would even argue this is idol worship and therefore Catholics are not Christian).
If the Bible alone theory is valid then it would seem it doesn’t matter what Church you belong to. You only have to read the Bible and then allow the Holy Spirit to guide you in your interpretation of Scriptures. This is the result of what Luther extolled. Since Scripture is clear then all 26,000 religions must be right. Therefore it follows that if you’re a Mormon, a Moonie, a Catholic, an Evangelical, or someone who just keeps Jesus in his heart you will be fine. Read the Bible and let it’s truth lead you. That’s what makes you a Christian.
On the other hand, souls are at stake here. Either it matters or none of it matters. On this we must be black and white because the ramifications from being slip-shod are too significant. Does it matter if Jesus is God or not? Does it matter if we’re baptized or not? If Catholics receive the genuine presence of Christ as Christ commanded, (Jn. 6:52-56) then why aren’t people lined up around the block to receive him?
26,000 churches causes havoc on the Christian faith. How can anyone even consider Christianity when Christianity is so splintered? Where is the unity Christ prayed for in John 17:21? Let’s look at it another way - if Luther is right then the martyred saints before 1500 were fools. They never had the chance to interpret the Bible for themselves. They blindly followed the teachings of the Catholic Church, which, according to Luther and all his descendents, is wrong on many important doctrines.
Peter knew Jesus personally and was martyred for his faith…a faith that apparently accepts 26,000 interpretations. So why did he die? Why couldn’t he find a compromise with the Romans? Why did Paul and the early church adamantly condemn the teachings of the Gnostics and others who claimed the ability to interpret scripture for themselves? Some believed and taught Jesus had no physical body. The early church fought this interpretation because the fullness of Truth had been personally revealed to them and it was their life’s duty to see it correctly passed on.
But maybe the Apostles were wrong. Perhaps Peter misunderstood Jesus. Too bad Jesus hadn’t waited till 1500 to start his ministry. Apparently the first 1500 years were riddled with mistaken Church authority. All those poor confused people and all those mistaken martyrs who might not have died had they had permission to interpret the Bible for themselves. If Martin Luther was right why did it take God so long to bring about so much important change? And if Martin Luther was right doesn’t that make him a greater teacher than Peter, Paul and Jesus Christ?
Jesus promised to bring us to the fullness of truth. He promised to send an advocate, the Holy Spirit, who would lead us to the Truth that the Apostles were not yet ready to receive (Mt. 28:19-20, Jn. 16:13) Yet, one thousand five hundred years later we’re obviously so far off course that God has to bring about a new teacher. This man will correct the path Christ began. He will attempt to remove the Church’s teaching authority and pass it onto the individual. Through the efforts of Martin Luther the Christian course is supposedly corrected.
The question arises, if the Bible is self-interpreting, self-revealing and clear then why the confusion? Why so many Churches? As a Catholic I might be able to seriously consider sola Scriptura if there were two Churches or three. I could better understand a conflict between Lutherans, Catholics and Greek Orthodox. The differences are pretty cut and dry in comparison with 26,000?
The sola Scriptura theory conflicts with the Bible. In other words, the Bible itself refutes the very idea that the “Bible alone” is sufficient. “So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading? And he said, “How can I unless someone guides me? (Acts 8:30-31)”
If the New Testament were written in the 1500’s then the answer would be straight forward, “Hey, buddy. You don’t need an interpreter. It’s clear. Just stick with it.” Yet that is not what the Bible teaches. “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. (Acts 8:35)” The man in the story shows both wisdom and humility by expressing a need for an authority to teach and lead him to the fullness of truth. The man rightfully reasons Scripture passages are not clear unless an approved teacher is there to guide him.
The results from allowing the Bible to interpret itself are also spelled out in the Bible, “…Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him…as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)” Peter writes this because he is able to see how easily scripture can be misinterpreted. The results do not end up with relativism (you believe what you want and I believe what I want) but instead we are told the results end in self-destruction.
We know Jesus built and established HIS church on Peter (Mt. 16:18) and did not build many churches (Mt. 18:17-18). The Bible tells us that Jesus body is the Church and Jesus is the head (Col 1:18). Christ promised the Holy Spirit would lead us to the fullness of truth (Jn 16:13) and the Bible calls this Church the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
According to the Bible Jesus is the head and he is not confused. If there is confusion then the confusion is with us. The proper tools of instruction and formation are found inside the Church Jesus built (Mt 7:24). Since Jesus promised to never leave us (Mt. 28:19-20) he must therefore be present in the Church he established and this Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. This is what the Bible teaches clearly.
The Bible teaches Jesus is the head and his body is the Church. Jesus established one Church and today it is called the Holy Roman Catholic Church. 2000 years running and ever growing strong. Powered by the Holy Spirit She is unstoppable and everlasting. Praise God.
But my separated brethren object. They claim I misunderstand sola Scriptura. Norman Geisler and Ralph Mackenzie in their book, “Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences” define sola Scriptura as:
“Scripture is the sufficient and final written authority of God. As to sufficiency, the Bible—nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else—is all that is necessary for faith and practice. In short, “the Bible alone” means “the Bible only” is the final authority for our faith….”1
Where is this taught in the Bible? Where did Jesus say this or any of the prophets? With what authority can such a statement be made? In 2 Thes. 2:15 we read, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Two points can quickly be drawn here. First, we are to grab, clutch, cling onto traditions taught by the Apostles. Second, oral traditions are equal to written. Consequently, even Scripture refutes Geisler and Mackenzie.
Let’s say a group of people forms the “George Sparkes Fan Club (GSFC).” For whatever reason they decide my Dad, who passed away in 1978, is an extraordinary guy. They go so far as to model their lives around my Dad’s memory. And let’s also say they base their actions on the discovery and interpretations of my Dad’s long lost diary. From the examples and testimonies found inside they sincerely try to emulate and copy his life as best they can. For example, they all become small storeowners. They all become Cincinnati Red fans.
One day I happen to see two members of the GSFC leaving a Safeway grocery store with a bag of groceries. I stop them and ask what they are doing? They innocently respond, “We’re just doing our weekly grocery shopping.” I look at them puzzled and ask, “Aren’t you members of GSFC?” Somewhat surprised the say, “Yes, we’re charter members. Why do you ask?”
“I ask because my Father never would have shopped at Safeway. He owned a grocery store and was in competition with Safeway!”
“That’s funny.” the pair respond, “Because he never wrote that in his diary.” The pair looks at each other as if to confirm what they had just said.
My voice begins to shake nervously. “Maybe not, but as his son I can attest to the fact as can my brother and sisters that George Sparkes hated Safeway more than any other chain in America and that you are doing him a disservice by shopping there!”
“Well if it’s so important why didn’t he write it down?”
My temple vein begins to throb. I take a breath and exclaim, “He didn’t need to. Anyone who knew my Dad at all knew he hated Safeway.”
“That’s not true, Dougie. We know your Father. We’ve studied his diary. So if what you say is true and so important then he should have written it down. Now, Dougie,” they say calmly, “Your Father was an extremely wise man. Do you think he would ignore writing down something as important as this?”
“Look,” I said trying to regain my patience. “I am his son. I know my Father better than all of you combined and I’m telling you he would not shop at Safeway.”
With a sigh the two smile and with a comforting tone that only comes from arrogance and say, “Dougie, let me quote your Father, “Look to the lilies of the field. See how they never struggle. They grow fully and happily because God cares for them.” See, this proves George did not hate Safeway. He was too relaxed to be bothered by such minor issues. You need to relax as your Father suggests. You should read his writings more often so that you can know him better.”
I look at them with great disbelief. Why don’t they listen? I was his son. I know what George taught and believed…he told me all the time.
Now it stands to reason that as my Father’s son I would have first hand knowledge of what my Father believed about many issues. If my brother and sisters substantiate my beliefs you would have to conclude we’re correct or we didn’t know our Father that well, or we were purposely deceptive.
You could dismiss my family’s authority completely. Maybe my Dad was a secretive fellow. Maybe he led a second life unbeknownst to us – his children. That is a possibility. However, if our statements about our Father are consistent and are substantiated by his personal writings in his diary the odds of us being wrong on issues not found in the diary are greatly reduced. On the other hand, what if my family has a secret agenda? If that is the case where is the evidence?
If these fictitious people went through Dad’s closet they might find a book of Mormon. I once did. Does that mean my Father was a closet Mormon? It might if they had preconceived notions about my Father. Such notions can blind you from seeing the truth. In this case, Mormons gave my Father the book and he thought he had thrown it away. He had never even opened it.
As you know this story isn’t about my Father**. It is really about Catholic faith and tradition. Jesus had Apostles and disciples. They in turn had disciples of their own. As the Church was spreading, Gnostics and others tried to change the message of Jesus. The Gnostics claimed many things about Jesus. To the faithful their arguments sometimes seemed appealing. We have many letters from the early Church fathers defending the Church teaching on Jesus from these groups (Irenaeus’ Against Heresies is an example). In the end the Catholic Church won. How? Because just as I know my Father better than his fans the disciples know Jesus better than the heretics. These disciples taught what they knew to their disciples who in turn taught theirs and so on. What the Apostles taught about Jesus was eventually written down. Future disciples then referenced these writings with their traditional teachings. The two (Bible and Tradition) became a living, consistent instruction of the faith now commonly called the Roman Catholic Church.
Unless a binding infallible authority was established many erroneous ideas about Christ might have eventually been established. As I wrote earlier some groups claimed he was not a real man, but a spirit man. Consequently they condemned matter and the flesh and as a result they condemned marriage. Other groups insisted Jesus wasn’t God. Some groups produced gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) and said they based their beliefs on these so called, “inspired teachings”.
What authority decides what books belong or do not belong in the Bible? How can we be certain that the books selected for the Bible are inspired? Why isn’t the Gospel of Thomas part of the collection? The answer is that a binding authority made a God inspired and infallible decision. This is a historical fact that went unchallenged for 1500 years and that binding and infallible authority is called the Catholic Church. Fueled by the Holy Spirit she is able to properly discern Truth from fiction. Unless you accept that reasoning you have no business quoting the Bible. Why? Because the Roman Catholic Church canonized all the books of the Bible. Therefore to quote the Bible is to attest to the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church. (Incidentally, some people accuse the Catholic Church of adding books to the Bible. The truth is she did. Those books are commonly called the New Testament.)
Luther disagreed with many books of the Bible. He wanted to remove Hebrews, James, and Revelation and in his personal Bible he added the word, “alone” to Romans. In removing books he was actually partially successful. Protestants remove 7 books from their Bibles. Books the Catholics call the deuterocanonical. This always makes me smile because many non-Catholics misinterpret Revelation and warn us to never add or remove a word or book from Scripture.
It comes down to this, the Catholic Church holds to the same dogmatic doctrines she did 2000 years ago. Some have been clarified but none have been added, dropped or changed. No human institution can make and substantiate the same claim. The Church can because she is the body of God and not a human institution.
Objections:
“Scripture states that it is “inspired” and “competent” for a believer to be “equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If the Bible alone is sufficient to do this, then nothing else is needed.”2
Catholics agree wholly and completely with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (when taken in context). “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” If a Catholic hears this he should shout, “Amen! Amen! Absolutely Amen!” But is the Bible teaching ONLY “scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”? Nowhere does 2 Timothy imply “only” the Bible is sufficient.
If I say to you, “Clean air and all clean air is necessary for life.” Would you conclude that you only need clean air to live? What about water and food? Just because one element is necessary doesn’t exclude others. The Bible is one element in Christianity necessary for “training in righteousness.” The Catholic Church holds that there are other elements too. These elements (infallible doctrines of the faith, infallible teachings of the magesterium, Apostolic Tradition) supplement and compliment Sacred Scripture. We need food, water and air together. We cannot do away with any one. Scripture and infallible teaching go hand in hand.
When non-Catholic Christians use 2 Timothy to prove sola Scriptura they create a trap. When Paul wrote 2 Timothy the Caniocal books of the New Testament had not yet been formed. Over the years many books would claim to be inspired books, (the Gospel of Thomas for example), that in fact, were not. It took the decision of an infallible magesterium to determine what books were inspired and what books were not. Therefore if Paul was defending and defining sola Scriptura his words would only apply to the Old Testament. The New Testament would not be “inspired…profitable for teaching…correction, and for training in righteousness”.
“…the Bible is clear (perspicuous).”3 “…Scripture interprets Scripture”4
If “…the Bible is clear (perspicuous).”3 and if “…Scripture interprets Scripture”4 then why did anyone need rabbi’s, teachers or any other interpreter? Why not issue Bibles to everyone at birth. Why do we need or have Pastors or Priests? If the Bible is clear then the need for any teaching authority is mute.
Here is another problem for the sola Scriptura theory. What if I can’t read? What if I can’t read Greek or Hebrew? I therefore have to trust the interpretations of a fallible human or learn ancient Greek and Hebrew and trust my fallible interpretation. Perhaps the statement above should be amended to, “the Bible is clear to those with a scholarly education.” Did God make a mistake? If sola Scriptura is true then it stands to reason that everyone should be born with a natural ability to read ancient Greek and Hebrew. Otherwise you are basing your faith on the linguistic interpretations of sinful translators.
The problem of course is that although Scripture is infallible translations of Scripture are not. A translator may make intentional or unintentional translations. In the first years of the printing press some printed Bibles were condemned because of printing errors. One example is the “Murderer’s Bible” aptly named because the commandment was misprinted, “Thou shall kill.” If sola Scriptura is correct then we need a natural ability to read the original text in its un-translated Hebrew or Greek language.
In summary, sola Scriptura fails on many points. One, there is no evidence in Scripture to substantiate it. Two, those who practice sola Scriptura have splintered into more than 26,000 registered churches with just as many interpretations. Three, sola Scriptura is dangerous and may result in self-destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16). Four, sola Scriptura depicts God as unwise and unjust for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Jesus is confused. He has one head and 26,000 bodies that conflict with the other bodies. Five, most of the 26,000 Churches are hypocritical. On the one hand they deny Catholic infallibility and on the other hand they accept the Catholic infallible ruling of the Bible. Six, sola Scriptura does not begin to work unless you are educated and command a perfect understanding of ancient languages.
*From Jeff Cavins tape series, I’m Not Being Fed
**Analogy suggested by former Pastor now Catholic Apologist Ken Helmsley
1 Geisler & MacKenzie Roman Catholics & Evangelicals, pp 178
2 Ibid., p 184
3,4 Ibid., p 178