Some Protestant corner stones remain perpetual stumbling blocks for Catholics. One is the idea of sola Scriptura. Simply defined sola Scriptura states the Bible alone is the sole rule and authority for all Christians. The Bible “…alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals).” “However good they may be in giving guidance, all the church fathers, popes, and councils are fallible. Only the Bible is infallible.”
These two quotes come from a book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Disagreements. It is written by Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, (Chapter 10, page 178). I often quote Geisler and MacKenzie because they are contemporary Protestant Apologists that I find to be typical, honest and sincere.
However I must add a caution as well as thank my friend, Tim Hope for pointing out and reminding me that Protestants do not have a Catechism. That is, there isn’t a set of beliefs that all non-Catholic Christians subscribe to. Every Christian sect brings with it a set of beliefs unique to their interpretation. One group may define sola Scriptura this way where the next group will modify the definition by adding or removing specific aspects. I have often stated there are over 26,000 registered Christian denominations in the world today. It is very possible that each of these denominations will have it’s own definition of sola Scriptura. For our purpose of understanding modern Protestant / Evangelical thought though I will rely on the writings of Geisler and MacKenzie. The reader should keep in mind and understand since there is no “set standard” amongst Protestant / Evangelical beliefs each claim has to be analyzed separately.
For our purposes I believe Geisler and MacKenzie nicely define the rule of sola Scriptura as well as point out the stumbling blocks between non-Catholics and Catholics.
Let’s look at their definition closer. Sola Scriptura states that Scripture alone is the sole means of infallible truth. Scripture alone is “the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)… Only the Bible is infallible.”
Now, it is a historical fact that Martin Luther (the founder of sola Scriptura) added the word “alone” to his Bible. He removed seven books from the canon of the Old Testament and tried to remove several books from the New. To this day Protestant Old Testament Bibles are missing the seven books Luther removed.
Because Luther could justify the removal of books from the canon of Scripture I would argue that Protestantism (under the example given by Luther) believes the infallibility of Scripture must be scrutinized by well meaning people from time to time. After all, Luther did just that. He claimed that the Bible alone was the sole rule of authority and that the Catholic Church was not needed. Remember part of our definition for sola Scriptura is “Only the Bible is infallible.” However, Luther did not see his own hypocrisy when after making the sola Scriptura proposition he then went on to add the word “alone” to his book of Romans, remove seven books of the Old Testament Canon and then argue for the removal of Hebrews and Revelation to name only two. In other words, Luther should have said, “Only the Bible is infallible once I finish tinkering with it a bit.”
There are many problems with sola Scriptura and analytical reasoning. The more obvious and basic errors can be read in my paper, “Sola Scriptura: The Bible Alone Theory.” In this paper I wish to explore another side of sola Scriptura; it’s roots. In essence non-Catholic Christians stick solely with the Bible because they reject the tradition and interpretation of all others who claim Apostolic Authority. In other words, unless the non-Catholic Christian reads it in the Bible then it might not be true.
Non-Catholic Christians reject the “Tradition” of Apostolic Authority as presented, retained, and/or promoted by the Catholic Church. Consequently, Apostolic Authority is only recognized in written form, that is, the Bible.
This allows non-Catholics to pick and choose what they want to believe. It allows them a great margin of ignorance. If I only have to accept what the Bible clearly teaches then many disturbing questions and decisions are up for interpretation: “Why shouldn’t I kill my terminally ill and suffering parent or grand parent? If the same thing were happening to my pet I would put them to sleep out of mercy, love and kindness. How can I do any less for someone I really love?” Another example, “How do we know the Apostles were against birth control?” One might argue the Bible infers birth control is objectionable but nowhere does the Bible state, “Thou shall not take the birth control pill.”
If Protestants accept Catholic Church Authority then Protestants must accept Catholic teaching on faith and morals. They must drop their personal conclusions and exchange them with beliefs they either don’t understand, don’t want to understand, or are afraid to understand.
Do you see the conundrum? Sola Scriptura says we shouldn’t recognize church fathers, popes, and councils as being apostolic, authoritative or infallible. We should only recognize the written words from the Apostles themselves as being authoritative and infallible. But then how do we decide a proper course of action with issues the Bible doesn’t discuss?
Let’s assume the Protestants are correct. From now on we will only recognize the written words from the Apostles themselves as being authoritative and infallible. That is, it ain’t inspired unless I read it in the Bible.
Assuming that position is correct, one question immediately arises, by what criteria does it belong in the Bible? How do we know the Apostles wrote those books? Who wrote Hebrews? Why isn’t the book, “The Gospel According to Thomas” included in the New Testament? What books belong and which do not? Who makes the binding decision? The Apostle’s didn’t.
Tradition tells us that John the Evangelist was the last Apostle to die. Why didn’t he formulate the binding canon of Scripture? If the Apostles writings were inspired why didn’t they collect their writings together and announce “The New Testament”?
The New Testament was not put together until nearly 400 A.D. According to sola Scriptura, “However good they may be in giving guidance, all the church fathers, popes, and councils are fallible.” Consequently, the council of Carthage 397 AD was fallible when it defined the canon of Scripture. Or was the Council of Carthage the one time exception?
If you accept the New Testament canon of Scripture then you are trusting the so-called fallible decision of men. As I see it you can go three ways, you can ignore what I am suggesting and let sleeping dogs lie, you can distrust the decision of the Council of Carthage and tinker with Scripture like Luther did or you can accept the Church decision on the canon of Scripture. After all, maybe God did let the early Church get one right.
Position 1: Ignore the issue and let the sleeping dogs lie. What does it matter? We have a Bible and it works well enough. If you take this position and you are not Catholic then you should become Catholic. Why? Because according to the Protestant reformers this is exactly what the Catholic Church does. It tells the faithful to remain ignorant and trusting. The faithful should blindly trust and blindly follow the Church.
On the other hand, if you are Catholic and you take this position then you should stop being Catholic and join a non-denominational Church. Why? Because there are sound reasons for our faith. The Catholic Church condemns blind faith. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 156. Dei Filius: DS 3008-10; cf. Mk 16:20; Heb 2:4)
Position 2: Distrust the decision of Carthage. If you adhere to sola Scriptura then this is the most honest response. After all, how can a fallible group of men make an infallible judgment, pronouncement and decision? Many books were being considered for the canon of Scripture. What criterion was being used? By what authority can a binding decision possibly be made? What books should be considered? What do you keep and what do you reject? Luther was right to re-examine the wheel except he broke his own tenet. He said you only needed the Bible, but the Bible is silent regarding its canon. Therefore Luther needed more than the Bible alone. He needed someone or something to tell him what the Bible alone was. The Bible doesn’t come with a table of contents. Men could only add the table of contents after the Council of Carthage infallibly defined the canon of Scripture.
Position 3: Accept the Church decision for the canon of Scripture. If you accept this position then you accept the authority of the Church. You accept that its decision is binding. You accept that at least one Catholic council made an infallible decision. In other words, you reject sola Scriptura.
Position 3 is the obviously the Catholic position. But where does the Church get her authority? What makes her so special? Was the Council of Carthage simply a lucky fluke or is the Catholic Church exactly what she claims to be “the spotless, virginal Bride of Christ”? Let’s take a look as we explore “the Origins of Church Authority.”
Imagine the United States in the late 1700’s. The Bill of Rights has been signed, the war for Independence with England is over and the new little country called the United States is trying to find it’s legs and grow. For the sake of experiment let’s make a small but significant change in the course of history. Instead of three branches of Government, the Legislative, the Juridical and the Executive let’s say we now only have one, the Individual. That is, every American male is given a copy of the US Constitution and told to interpret it as he sees fit. (I intentionally say “American male” because unless you were a Protestant white male and a landowner you didn’t have many rights in the early years of the United States.)
Because there is no Government other than the individual you might find yourself disagreeing with many of your neighbors. Some neighbors say the Bill of Rights should be interpreted literally and say “All men are created equal” includes women and blacks. Others strongly disagree and are willing to fight or even go to war. Still others say the liberties granted by the Constitution only protect people after they have been born and consequentially the unborn child has no rights per-se. One neighbor says it is his constitutional right to play practical jokes and sees no harm in yelling “fire” in a crowded room.
It is pretty clear that if this were actually the case it is easy to imagine the chaos that might have quickly ensued were there not some kind of governmental order in place to interpret and enforce their interpretation of the US Constitution. Our “Founding Fathers” were intelligent enough to provide a Government that would protect their initial ideals and intentions, as outlined in both our “Declaration of Independence” and the “Bill of Rights.” The question then, would God be any less intelligent about His Church? If we can easily imagine the chaos from individuals being allowed to interpret for themselves a government for the people and by the people then how much more will sinful man mess up interpreting the will of a perfect God?
There are those who will argue, “The Constitution is not inspired or infallible. Therefore it is not protected like Scripture. The true Church of God is invisible and protected by the Holy Spirit. We may differ on the little things, but the big issues are spelled out in the Bible and on these issues all Christians can agree.” Okay, if that is the case, answer me this,
1. Is baptism simply symbolic and not really necessary for salvation or is even infant baptism necessary?
2. The meal at Catholic Mass is it the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus or is it a symbolic memorial meal or perhaps even idol worship?
3. Why is cloning moral or immoral?
I could go on and on. The point is we don’t have over 26,000 Christian registered denominations that disagree only on the small issues. We have over 26,000 registered denominations because 25,999 do not accept or recognize the authority Christ gave to His Bride, the Holy Catholic Church!
Okay, it is fine for me to make such an assertion. How can I prove it?
In the analogy of the Individual US Government mentioned above I said God was at least as smart as men and therefore would not just give us a book or some rules and say you’ll figure it out as you go on. I implied and asserted that some kind of authority must be present or chaos would ensue. How do I know God would behave in this manner? History says so. The Mosaic priesthood was established in the Old Testament as a God approved authority for the Jews (2 Chr. 19:11, Mal 2:7). This authority was present at the time of Jesus. We know this because Jesus warns his disciples to obey the authority of the Pharisees because they sit on “Moses seat” (Mt. 23:3). Christ is referring to the authority given to the Pharisees by God. Even Christ is obedient to this authority. In Matthew 26: 63-64 we read, “But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you’re the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him, “You have said so.”
So clearly it is shown that God establishes and respects authority. Since Jesus is the Son and is one and the same as his Father, can he establish anything less?
In many ways, the Old Testament is a poor reflection or shadow of the New Testament. The figures of the old pre-figure the new. For example, in many ways, Moses and Christ are alike. Yet Christ is much greater. Such is the case when we compare any of the “types” of the Old Testament with the New Testament. In every case the New Testament type is always greater than the Old Testament type. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the law, its completion and triumph. It logically follows that it must be greater.
Consequently, in the Old Testament, we have a living authority established by God for the sake of His faithful, the Jews, for hundreds of years. Would the authority established by God’s son be any less? Logically we should expect not. In fact, it should be a perfect fulfillment of what God originally intended. Just as Jesus is a perfect type of Moses so should Jesus Church be a perfect type of authority.
Matthew 16:13-19: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the power of death shall not prevail against it.”
Note a couple of key points here. One: a more literal interpretation would read as follows: “And I say to you, you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build MY church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (emphasis all mine).
Two: The name Peter really means rock. It is on Rock that Jesus will build his church. Thus, Peter the rock is given great authority.
Three: Jesus is building “HIS” church and it is singular. Christ does not say “a church” or “churches.” He says “MY” church.
Four: This singular church that Christ himself is establishing on Peter the rock is to remain singular. We can infer this by Christ’s passionate prayer and plea to his Father for unity in Jn. 17:20 – forward. We can infer it again in Matthew 18:17-18 when Jesus tells his disciples to ultimately hand over controversies to the decision of the church. Those who disagree with the church decision are not excused to make up their own new church. These people, Christ commands, should be treated as though they were tax collectors.
The Bible clearly teaches that God desires one united church constructed by Him alone. If the Apostles were obligated to follow the teachings of the imperfect authority of the Pharisees (“Moses seat” (Mt. 23:3)) how much more are they and we to follow the teachings of the authority found in the Church Christ himself established?
At least two questions then arise, 1, how do we know the church Christ established is the Catholic Church? 2, why couldn’t the Catholic Church become corrupted like the Mosaic priesthood did with the Pharisees?
Question 1: How do we know the church Christ established is the Catholic Church?
Answer: In Isaiah 9:6-7 we read the government of Christ will never end. Again, it is written in Luke 1:32-33 that there is no end to Christ’s kingdom. We know that Jesus is a wise man that builds his house on a rock and not sand (Mt. 7:24). If we believe the Bible then we must believe the church Jesus established will never end. Therefore, the real question is, “what happened to the church Christ established?” For that answer we must look to history.
This quote from “Beginning Apologetics 1” by Father Frank Chacon and Jim Burnham clearly reinforces the historical establishment and authority of the Holy Roman Catholic Church during the first century: “Please note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome.” (Apostolic Authority / Peter and the Papacy page 17).
The Catholic Church claims its establishment from Christ and claims Peter as her first Pope. The above-mentioned piece of history is very significant because it shows the last of the living Apostles (John, the beloved disciple) recognized and approved the authority from the Bishop of Rome. John does not involve himself with the decisions made by Rome. He respects Rome’s authority. Early history also shows that the early established Church recognized the authority of Rome. The Church at Corinth does not contact John the Evangelist. They look to Rome for their answer. Rome does not look to John to support or criticize their response. The response from Pope Clement I is binding and authoritative.
Consequently, early documented history proves the church established by Jesus set it’s headquarters up in Rome during the first century. History also shows a chronological line of Popes who have helped to lead the Church to where she is today.
Question 2: Why couldn’t the Catholic Church become corrupted like the Mosaic priesthood did with the Pharisees?
Answer: Although members of the Catholic Church might become corrupted the Church itself cannot. Scripture is full of reasons why.
In Col. 1:18 we read that the Church Christ established is a body, a body to which Christ is head. Therefore the Church Christ created is somehow his mystical body. To infer the Church is corrupted is to blaspheme Jesus.
In 1 Tim 3:15 it is written that the “Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.” Therefore if the Church is corrupted then the pillar and foundation of Truth is corrupted.
In Jn. 16:13 Christ promises to lead us into all truth and in Mt. 28:19-20 he promises to never abandon us. If the Church is corrupted as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses might argue, then Jesus failed to live up to his promise. Again, to suggest such a thing is to blaspheme Christ.
Men are sinners. Every Pope has sinned. Does this corrupt the Church or does it corrupt the man? The Church is certainly scandalized by the sin of its members, but the will of God is never dependant on the holiness of men. Christ picked Judas even though he knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him. In Mt. 13:24-30 Christ tells a parable of the harvest. Servants discover that the enemy has planted weeds in the garden. The owner instructs the servants to continue to let the weeds grow with the wheat. Only when the time of harvest is reached will the weeds will be separated. So it is with the Church. Weeds or sinful people may creep in and try to do harm, but they cannot destroy the Church. The Church may suffer, but ultimately it survives and in the end the bad is separated from the good and burned.