North of the Shire

Recently I have listened to a couple of discussions of Sola Scriptura by different Catholic apologists, and before I summarize and pull some of that together, there is one thing that John Martignoni pointed out in his discussion that I would like to emphasize. This was indeed my own turning point from Protestantism to the Catholic Church.

The issue that underlies all issues is authority. Amen. That is the conclusion that I came to as well. I think also we might say that the first foot forward away from the Catholic Church is the Sola Scriptura doctrine. Some would say Sola Fide, but in order to attempt to “prove” that doctrine, Sola Scriptura must come first. And it is clear, when we step back to the core issue of authority, the rejection of the Apostolic authority of the Church by Luther, et. al. in the 16th century necessitated a replacement of that authority. Otherwise, how can the truth be known? The doctrine of Sola Scriptura was the answer.

What does the doctrine teach? Let’s take the Wiki definition;
“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”
So, just as a first point of reason, we realize that for such a doctrine to be true, it must be found in the Scriptures. Otherwise, it is only a tradition of some men who decided to reject Church authority.
So that then becomes the argument. Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura? The Church teaches that such a doctrine is not found in Scripture, and Protestants, who for the most part hold the doctrine, argue that Scripture does indeed teach Sola Scriptura. Here are some of the key passages generally referred to as proof;

Gospel of John, Chapter 20;
30. Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
31. But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

2 Timothy, Chapter 3;
16. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17. so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 17;
10. The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas to Beroea during the night. Upon arrival they went to the synagogue of the Jews.
11. These Jews were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all willingness and examined the scriptures daily to determine whether these things were so.
12. Many of them became believers, as did not a few of the influential Greek women and men.

Of the three, only the first is actually directly referring to the words of a book of the New Testament. St. John the Evangelist, at the end of his written account, is telling the reader, as he does also in Chapter 21, that he has not put down everything in writing. In fact he says;

Chapter 21;
25. There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

But he says that I am writing this so that you will believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. And note what he says, and that “through this belief you may have life in his name.” In other words (contra Sola Fide, the other of those doctrines) this belief is the first step to your salvation.
The obvious question at this point, given that John tells us there is a whole lot more he didn’t write down, is this;
Were those other things unimportant? Were they considered unnecessary?
Or is he saying that with his Gospel account, there is enough information for a person to either believe in Jesus Christ or not? Is he saying that this isn’t the whole thing, this is nowhere near the entire knowledge of the faith, the teaching on faith and morals, but from the point of view of evangelization, this is enough to get you started on your journey into communion in the Church?
You see, we only ask this question in one context, the context of the recent doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It is clear from the writings of the disciples of John himself that he taught them a whole lot more than the strict limit of what is in his gospel. That is a matter of historical record. Obviously then, there is a whole lot more to the faith and its doctrines than what he put into his own gospel account, and he is the one pointing out that fact in the quote above.
However, either way we take it, there is still a problem for Sola Scriptura. He is only talking about the Gospel account that he himself is writing. To suggest that he is teaching the doctrine of Sola Scripture is far too broad. His teaching would have to be “SOLA EVANGELIUM SECUNDUM IOANNEM” would it not? He is saying that what he has written is sufficient to believe in Jesus Christ, not what Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul have also been writing.

Now in both the other cases, we are not talking about the New Testament at all. Let’s look at 2 Timothy 3, but just before the quote above we find this;

14. But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,
15. and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Here we discover just what Scriptures St. Paul is talking about. He is talking about the Scriptures that Timothy has learned from his infancy. Let’s think about this. We know that Timothy was young, at least young for a bishop, because St. Paul mentions it (I Timothy 4:12) but even so if this letter were written by St. Paul between 63 and 67 AD as most scholars believe, and Timothy was between 20 and 30, let us say, for the sake of argument, that would place him in his infancy scarcely 10 years after the ascension of our Lord. But Mark’s Gospel, which most scholars concede was the first to be written, is dated at it’s earliest to be about 60 AD, which is barely 7 years before the letter to Timothy who is already a bishop.

Clearly, the Scriptures that St. Paul is talking about are the Old Testament Scriptures. So now, even if we are to concede that the St. Paul is saying that the Scriptures are “sufficient” and not just profitable or “useful” as the NAB renders it, then the passage, as they say, proves too much. He would be arguing for SOLA VETUS TESTAMENTUM rather than Sola Scriptura.

Again, in the case of the Bereans, we find a people unlike the Thessalonians who had looked at the Scriptures and decided St. Paul was wrong about Christ (that could only be the Old Testament, if they are applying the Scriptures to St. Paul’s claims) These were an open-minded people, checking the Scriptures to see if St. Paul was correct in what he was preaching. Let’s look at what the passage says. They received the “word?” What is the “word” here? This is Jesus, the Word, as John’s Gospel calls him. St. Paul preaches Jesus, and him crucified. And what are the Bereans doing? They are checking these claims, made orally through the preaching of St. Paul, against the Scriptures. Again, this could only be the Old Testament and that is not what Sola Scriptura is restricted to as a doctrine. In fact, the Bereans were receiving something other than what they were able to read in Scripture, ie., the oral “tradition” of St. Paul, so they were practicing anything but Sola Scriptura.

We see then, that even stretching the passages as far as they will go, and ascribing to them the character of “sufficiency” they point us away from Sola Scriptura in every case. The doctrine cannot be true, therefore, because it is not clearly found in Scripture, and by definition it has to be found there to be valid.

The consequences of this are significant. If the Scriptures cannot be the final authority of truth what is? Well, what do the Scriptures say about it?

1 Timothy 3;
15. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

It is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth. The next question then, for another day, would have to be; What Church?