Did Adam & Eve Practice Sola Scriptura?

Unusual as the question may sound, no less a personage than the polemical rogue John Bugay makes that wery claim here. The title of this blog article (for the man does not quit but grows more wild) is “The First Adam, Sola Scriptura, and His Commission as King, Priest, and Protestant.” Yes, dear reader, it would seem that Adam was a Protestant. Did you know that? I sure didn’t. But it’s remarkable what you’ll learn on Failablogue. (Mr. Bugay calls it Triablogue, which I think is optimistic.)

MR. JOHN BUGAY: POLEMICAL ROGUE AND THEOLOGICAL HIGH-JUMP CHAMPION

Now, what Mr. Bugay seems to be up to this time is to wring wet and curious claims out of a sponge of a book by G.K. Beale called A New Testament Biblical Theology. In the passage at hand, Mr. Beale discusses the first commission of God to Adam, immediately after the Creation. Adam’s kingship over creation, he says, is “part of a functional definition of the divine image in which Adam was made.” To put that in plainer English, Adam, who made to reflect God’s image, was also made to reflect God’s character in “moral attributes such as righteousness, knowledge, holiness, justice, love, faithfulness, and integrity.” Thus, as Mr. Beale understands it, Adam was a “primordial priest.” And his priesthood, Mr. Beale says, depended upon obedience to God.

So far so good. But from the starting point of these relatively dry, academic, and innocuous passages, the gymnastic Mr. Bugay proceeds to leap a thousand miles to arrive here:

Roman Catholics are fond of asking, “Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible? The first instance of it is right here, at the beginning, establishing the principle from the start. Adam and Eve had a word from God (though no “infallible canon”), and they were simply expected to understand and obey. … There is no provision for an “infallible interpreter” at this point.

Really, one wonders where to begin. Let me see if I have this right. Adam and Eve did not have an infallible canon—or any canon—but they did have sola scriptura. Can I ask anyone who understands that to please explain? Can I also ask Mr. Bugay how he derives sola scriptura from our duty to obey the commandments of God? I assume that this skilled Olympic athlete can give a straightforward answer, since he’s the one who’s making the leap—I’m just lost on the chain of reasoning that leads him from the one to the other. No, I would not accuse you of non sequitur, Mr. Bugay, for that would be libel; but can you help me, good sir? Catholicism does deny sola scriptura—well, you know this—but it still says that we must obey what God says. Being a Catholic, I tend to think of those two things as distinct. Perhaps, Mr. Bugay, you can explain it to me in a way I can understand. My mind may just be less profound than your own, my legs less Olympic and apt to pole vault into orbit.

I am also curious—I just ask questions; I seek only to be taught here—why Mr. Bugay takes the pains he does to point out that God made “no provision for an ‘infallible interpreter.'” Why would Adam and Eve have needed one? The polemical rogue seems to forget (I am bold) that he’s writing about the condition of mankind before the Fall. Adam and Eve were created in the image of God and without stain of sin. Their reason was uncorrupted. The fallibility of human reason is a condition of the Fall, not a description of Adam and Eve before the Fall. There was “no provision for an ‘infallible interpreter'” because Adam and Eve did not need one. They were incapable of error (I mean intellectual error). They sinned, yes; because they had free will, they disobeyed. But not because they were confused about what God required. Mr. John Bugay confuses Adam and Eve with—Mr. John Bugay!

Returning to Beale, Mr. Bugay quotes this passage:

When confronted by the satanic serpent, Adam’s wife responds by quoting Gen 2:16-17 but changes the wording in at least three major places (Gen. 3:2-3). It is possible that the changes are incidental and are a mere paraphrase . … It is more likely, however, that she either failed to remember God’s word accurately or intentionally changed it for her own purposes.

Well, okay, let us look at this. That Eve “changes the wording” when quoting God to the serpent is not all that original an observation. Some, like Coffman, take the view that Eve has sinned already. As for Beale, he finds her changes minor enough that the change may have been “incidental” and “paraphrase,” though he thinks it likelier that she did so by design, “for her own purposes.” But he does not know for sure.

I would point out, though—Mr. Beale does not tell us this, unless Mr. Bugay leaves that part out (and it would not be all that shocking if he had)—that Eve’s change makes God’s commandment more strict, not less. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). When explaining these words to the serpent, Eve added the restriction that she and Adam not even touch the tree. That was not part of God’s command (Gen. 3:3). But no less a Reformed authority than Gill says that the idea that Eve had already sinned is “not sufficiently proved” and that not touching the tree was implied. Thus whether Eve failed to remember with precision what God said, or whether she was intentionally changing his words, she was not giving herself a license to disobey God. If anything, she was setting up an additional safeguard—as though to avoid an occasion of sin. Indeed, Eve’s addition sounds more like an act of prudence than it sounds like she was playing fast and loose with God’s words.

WHEREIN I SUGGEST THAT MR. BUGAY COME BACK DOWN TO EARTH AND READ A LITTLE JOHN HENRY NEWMAN

No such thoughts as these, however, prevent Mr. Bugay from making the very astonishing claim that Eve is engaging in “the very first instance of ‘the development of doctrine.'” Honestly, when one reads such words as these, the first impulse is to have a good laugh and then turn on the TV. That is mad. That is the kind of nonsense that gets spewed when a desperate Protestant is trying to be clever. He ends up being too clever by half.

Does Mr. Bugay know what the development of doctrine is? Does he? The development of doctrine does not mean disobeying commandments. (He needs to be told this.) The Church does not say, “You may commit adultery now.” She does not say, “Go, and sin boldly.” She does not say, “Faith alone will save you.” That would be a “development of doctrine” to protest. But if Mr. Bugay had bothered to read John Henry Newman’s On the Development of Christian Doctrine, even once, he might have a better idea what he’s talking about. No, don’t tell me you’ve read it, sir; for look you: Newman was attempting to describe how certain dogmas had become more explicit over time—such as the Doctrine of the Trinity. In his Introduction [read it here], he explains the necessity for such development in these words:

From the nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and perfection of great ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers, could not be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, as being received and transmitted by minds not inspired and through media which were human, <strong”>have required only the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation. This may be called the Theory Development of Doctrine.”

Now, it is important to understand that Newman is referring here to “the nature of the human mind” after the Fall. His words have no application to Adam and Eve in Eden. But the corrupted, and fallible, human mind that exists after the Fall does need time to comprehend the fullness of God’s revelation. God reveals himself slowly; and even after revelation, human comprehension is slow. It takes centuries; sometimes millennia. Christ, after all, says, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” (John 16:12-13a). Christ is describing a process; which, as the Catholic Church understands, necessarily develops over time. And the process occurs through the Church; to her, God gives the infallibility necessary to ensure the propagation of the truth and the unity of the faith.

The Second Vatican Council explains further, in Dei Verbum 8 (a text which Mr. Bugay also can not have read):

The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

Again, this is a description of God’s truth being revealed through time. It is not a description of rebellion against God. The Church does not say, “In the fulness of time, we threw out those pesky seven books and ten commandments.” If Mr. Bugay had bothered to read and understand either Newman or the Second Vatican Council, he would never attempt to describe Eve’s disobedience as a “development of doctrine.” That’s how fools and blind men talk. The Church tells us what its doctrines mean; Pope John B. does not. If he wants to critique the development of doctrine, good. Let him. But he should critique what the doctrine really says, and not a phantasm that he himself made up. I hold it not honesty for him to thus set it down.

The notion that Adam and Eve were Protestants practicing sola scriptura, until Eve ruined it all with her Catholic development of doctrine, tells us only how cosmically high a Reformed apologist is willing to vault in the effort to justify his continued schism.

***

If you like the content on this blog, your generous gift to the author helps to keep it active. I remember all my supporters in my Mass intentions each week.