Sola Scriptura (vs. “Barely Protestant” Anglican Priest)

The Barely Protestant YouTube channel is run by an Anglican priest, Fr. James, who apparently wishes to refrain from publicly using his last name. The description of the site reads: “An Anglo-Catholic who is on YouTube to help explain the historic (non-Papal) Catholic Faith within the Anglican Tradition.”

*****

This is a reply to his video, “Response to Fr. Mitch Pacwa’s Critique of Sola Scriptura” (4-6-21). As always, I will be looking to see if he can produce biblical proof of sola Scriptura, as he logically must, for the doctrine to escape being self-defeating. His words will be in blue.

The Protestant reformers did not believe, by sola Scriptura, that it’s the Bible alone and you don’t have anything else. [3:28-34]

I totally agree. Fr. James’ task, however, is to present his notion of the authentic definition of sola Scriptura, and where it is found in the Bible (i.e., why he believes it: based on the Bible or extra-biblical reasons). Fr. Mitch Pacwa, whom Fr. James is analyzing and citing, does indeed offer an erroneous and not properly qualified and nuanced “radically Bible alone” definition. This is unfortunate. All sides need to accurately understand the beliefs of others, and to not misrepresent their doctrines.

Historically, what is sola Scriptura? I’m going to read from Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. The 39 Articles is part of our confessional standards as Anglicans. [he then cites it]

VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. [5:19-6:01]

Note that this also proves my contention: that sola Scriptura must be proven by Scripture (according to this Anglican Confession), because it states “whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith.” Therefore, if sola Scriptura can’t be thus proven, Fr. James’ Anglican tradition informs him, it ought not be believed, let alone required for all, and let alone raised to the level of the rule of faith and one of the two “pillars” of the Protestant Reformation (along with sola fide: faith alone).

Fr. James (at least so far, and I am answering as I listen) doesn’t include the aspect of “infallibility” in his definition, which is about as wrong as what Fr. Pacwa offered. It’s part of the equation of the definition and essence of sola Scriptura, as seen from many recent defenders of that doctrine:

Reformed Baptist apologist James White (already mentioned by Fr. James in his video) defines sola Scriptura as I have myself defined it for 31 years as a Catholic:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church. (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59; the original was all italics)

Reformed Protestant Keith A. Mathison concurs:

Scripture . . . is the only inspired and inherently infallible norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm. (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001, 260)

So does the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler:

What Protestants mean by sola scriptura is that the Bible alone is the infallible written authority for faith and morals. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 178; co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie)

Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper agrees as well:

Sola Scriptura . . . recognizes that there are many authorities, but Scripture is the sole infallible authority, so Scripture has preference over all other authorities we might have. (“An Explanation of Sola Scriptura“,  3-11-19)

As does Baptist pastor Gavin Ortlund:

Sola Scriptura has always been maintained as the view that the Bible is the only infallible rule for theology. (“Sola Scriptura DEFENDED”, 12-15-20).

The above is the standard definition of sola Scriptura. Fr. James has (at least so far) neglected to include the crucial variable of infallibility in it: which denies infallibility to anything else. No one is arguing that Scripture isn’t unique, the sole inspired revelation, the written Word of God or that it is materially sufficient. The relevant question in this debate is: “is Scripture the only infallible authority in Christian life and theology?” And secondly: where is such a doctrine taught in the Bible? If it’s not in the Bible, it is clearly false, because it’s a view that has to do fundamentally with the Bible. If it comes from outside the Bible, it would be self-contradictory and self-defeating.

Infallibility is a lesser characteristic than inspiration, which Scripture alone possesses. Catholics contend that there are carefully defined instances of the exercise of infallible authority other than Scripture: from the Church, sacred apostolic tradition, ecumenical councils, and popes. In other words, when sola Scriptura is defined in this way, as it usually is, it precludes the infallibility of these other entities. Therefore, if Scripture can be shown to teach the infallibility of anything other than Scripture, sola Scriptura is then shown to be a false doctrine.

If Fr. James objects that these guys aren’t Anglicans, I’m happy to have that discussion as well, having written a 310-page book replying to two of the most famous historic Anglican defenders of sola Scriptura: Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical “Proofs” for “Bible Alone” (2012).  The definition of William Goode (1801-1868) is the same as I have said (expressed a bit differently, but amounting to the same thing):

The foundation upon which this truth rests is, as we have seen, briefly this; That as God is the only infallible Judge of controversies in religion, and as his voice can be recognised with certainty only in the Holy Scriptures, those Scriptures are consequently our only infallible Judge of controversies on earth. (The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 3 volumes, 1853, vol. 2, p. 126; see the citation online)

At the 17-minute mark, Fr. James keeps rightly objecting (over and over) to Fr. Pacwa’s false definition and straw man. That’s fine (I agree). For my purposes, I want to see why he believes in sola Scriptura, in its classic, proper “Reformation” definition, and it seems to me that the rationale (in the nature of the case) must be in Scripture itself. Will he ever do that in this video? I sure hope so.

I didn’t find any reference to a biblical defense of sola Scriptura in the entire video. If it occurred, perhaps Fr. James would be kind enough to direct me to it, so I can address his arguments. But I have two biblical arguments for an infallible Church, which are enough to refute sola Scriptura themselves.

In the Jerusalem Council, described in Acts 15, apostles (including Paul, Peter, and James) and elders got together to resolve a controversy over the place and function of circumcision, which foods were clean, and in a broader sense, how much Mosaic Law would apply to Christians. Here’s what it decided:

Acts 15:28-29 (RSV) For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

Here is the authority that this letter had, as seen in how Paul viewed it:

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

This is the universal and authoritative (and in this case, infallible) Church. A decision reached at Jerusalem was regarded as binding and in effect, “infallible” and was to be observed not just locally, but by Christians all through Asia Minor (Turkey), where Paul was preaching. This is essentially the equivalent of an ecumenical council.

1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.