![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/05\/Scroll6.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Barely Protestant<\/em><\/a> 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: \u201cAn Anglo-Catholic who is on YouTube to help explain the historic (non-Papal) Catholic Faith within the Anglican Tradition.\u201d<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to his video, \u201cResponse to Fr. Mitch Pacwa\u2019s Critique of Sola Scriptura\u201d<\/a> (4-6-21). As always, I will be looking to see if he can produce biblical proof of sola Scriptura<\/em>, as he logically must, for the doctrine to escape being self-defeating. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Protestant reformers did not believe, by sola Scriptura<\/em>, that it\u2019s the Bible alone and you don\u2019t have anything else.<\/span> [3:28-34]<\/p>\n I totally agree. Fr. James\u2019 task, however, is to present his notion of the authentic definition of sola Scriptura<\/em>, and where it is found in the Bible (i.e., why<\/em> he believes it: based on the Bible or extra-biblical reasons). Fr. Mitch Pacwa, whom Fr. James is analyzing and citing, does<\/em> indeed offer an erroneous and not properly qualified and nuanced \u201cradically Bible alone\u201d definition. This is unfortunate. All sides need to accurately understand the beliefs of others, and to not misrepresent their doctrines.<\/p>\n Historically, what is sola Scriptura<\/em>? I\u2019m going to read from Article 6 of the<\/span> Thirty-Nine Articles<\/a>. The 39 Articles is part of our confessional standards as Anglicans.<\/span> [he then cites it]<\/p>\n VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION<\/span><\/p>\n Holy<\/span> 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]<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Note that this also proves my contention: that sola Scriptura<\/em> must be proven by Scripture<\/em><\/strong> (according to this Anglican Confession), because it states \u201cwhatsoever 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.\u201d Therefore, if sola Scriptura<\/em> can\u2019t be thus proven, Fr. James\u2019 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 \u201cpillars\u201d of the Protestant Reformation (along with sola fide<\/em>: faith alone).<\/p>\n Fr. James (at least so far, and I am answering as I listen) doesn\u2019t include the aspect of \u201cinfallibility\u201d in his definition, which is about as wrong as what Fr. Pacwa offered. It\u2019s part of the equation of the definition and essence of sola Scriptura, as seen from many recent defenders of that doctrine:<\/p>\n Reformed Baptist apologist James White (already mentioned by Fr. James in his video) defines\u00a0sola Scriptur<\/em>a as I have myself defined it for 31 years as a Catholic:<\/p>\n The doctrine of\u00a0sola scriptura<\/em>, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the\u00a0regula fidei<\/em>, the\u00a0infallible\u00a0rule of faith for the Church. (The Roman Catholic Controversy<\/i><\/a>, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59; the original was all italics)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Reformed Protestant Keith A. Mathison concurs:<\/p>\n Scripture . . . is the only inspired and inherently\u00a0infallible\u00a0norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm.\u00a0(The Shape of Sola Scriptura<\/i><\/a>, Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001, 260)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So does the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler:<\/p>\n What Protestants mean by\u00a0sola scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is that the Bible alone is the\u00a0infallible\u00a0written authority for faith and morals. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/i><\/a>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 178; co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper agrees as well:<\/p>\n Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0. . . recognizes that there are many\u00a0authorities<\/em>, but Scripture is the sole\u00a0infallible<\/em>\u00a0authority, so Scripture has preference over all other authorities we might have. (\u201cAn Explanation of\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u201c<\/a>,\u00a0 3-11-19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As does Baptist pastor Gavin Ortlund:<\/p>\n Sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0has always been maintained as the view that the Bible is the only\u00a0infallible\u00a0rule for theology. (\u201cSola Scriptura DEFENDED\u201d,<\/a>\u00a012-15-20).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The above is the standard definition of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>. Fr. James has (at least so far) neglected to include the crucial variable of infallibility in it: which denies infallibility to anything else<\/em>. No one is arguing that Scripture isn\u2019t unique, the sole inspired revelation, the written Word of God or that it is materially sufficient. The relevant question in this debate is: \u201cis Scripture the\u00a0only infallible authority<\/em>\u00a0in Christian life and theology?\u201d And secondly: where is such a doctrine taught in the Bible? If it\u2019s not in the Bible, it is clearly false, because it\u2019s a view that has to do fundamentally\u00a0with<\/em>\u00a0the Bible. If it comes from outside the Bible, it would be self-contradictory and self-defeating.<\/p>\n 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\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0is defined in this way, as it usually is, it\u00a0precludes<\/em>\u00a0the infallibility of these other entities. Therefore, if Scripture can be shown to teach the infallibility of anything other than Scripture,\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0is then shown to be a false doctrine.<\/p>\n If Fr. James objects that these guys aren\u2019t Anglicans, I\u2019m 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<\/em>: Pillars of\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura:\u00a0Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical \u201cProofs\u201d for \u201cBible Alone\u201d<\/i><\/a>\u00a0<\/i>(2012).\u00a0 The definition of William Goode (1801-1868) is the same as I have said (expressed a bit differently, but amounting to the same thing):<\/p>\n 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<\/em>, 3 volumes, 1853, vol. 2, p. 126; see the citation online<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n At the 17-minute mark, Fr. James keeps rightly objecting (over and over) to Fr. Pacwa\u2019s false definition and straw man. That\u2019s fine (I agree). For my purposes, I want to see why he<\/em><\/strong> believes in sola Scriptura<\/em>, in its classic, proper \u201cReformation\u201d 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.<\/p>\n I didn\u2019t find any reference to a biblical defense of sola Scriptura<\/em> 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<\/em> themselves.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s what it decided:<\/p>\n Acts 15:28-29<\/strong>\u00a0(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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here is the authority that this letter had, as seen in how Paul viewed it:<\/p>\n Acts 16:4<\/strong>\u00a0As 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is the universal and authoritative (and in this case, infallible) Church. A decision reached at Jerusalem was regarded as binding and in effect, \u201cinfallible\u201d 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.<\/p>\n This may not seem compelling at first: just seven words at the end. But I believe that if we analyze it more deeply and think through it, that it provides a rock-solid argument for the infallibility of the Church. Here\u2019s how I myself did that in my book,\u00a0100 Biblical Arguments Against\u00a0<\/i>Sola Scriptura<\/a>\u00a0(pp. 104-107, #82):<\/p>\n Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a \u201cbulwark\u201d of the truth, means to be a \u201csafety net\u201d against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God\u2019s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus\u2019 parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err \u2014 it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:<\/p>\n Ephesians 2:19-21<\/strong>\u00a0. . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15 defines \u201chousehold of God\u201d as \u201cthe church of the living God.\u201d Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church\u2019s own \u201cfoundation\u201d is \u201cthe apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.\u201d The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.<\/p>\n Prophets spoke \u201cin the name of the Lord\u201d (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with \u201cthus says the Lord\u201d (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the \u201cword of the Lord\u201d (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).<\/p>\n Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God\u2019s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.<\/p>\n 1 Peter 2:4-9<\/strong>\u00a0Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God\u2019s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: \u201cBehold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.\u201d [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, \u201cThe very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,\u201d [8] and \u201cA stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall\u201d; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God\u2019s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)<\/p>\n Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even\u00a0identified with Jesus himself<\/em>, by being called his \u201cBody\u201d (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very \u201cBody of Christ.\u201d It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than\u00a0pure<\/em>\u00a0truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own \u201ctradition\u201d that he received and passed down.<\/p>\n Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something\u00a0less<\/em>\u00a0than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be\u00a0greater<\/em>\u00a0than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.<\/p>\n If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.<\/p>\n Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the\u00a0foundation\u00a0<\/em>of truth, the Church\u00a0must<\/em>\u00a0be\u00a0infallible<\/em>, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authority apart from Scripture,\u00a0sola scriptura<\/em>\u00a0must be false.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>Lawrie Cate<\/a>\u00a0(3-9-09)\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution 2.0 Generic<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Anglo-Catholic Fr. James, of the \u201cBarely Protestant\u201d YouTube channel critiques a Catholic criticism of sola Scriptura<\/em> but unfortunately provides no biblical proofs at all.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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: \u201cAn Anglo-Catholic who is on YouTube to help explain the historic (non-Papal) Catholic Faith within the Anglican Tradition.\u201d ***** This is a reply to his […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":64236,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[257,16132,16129,598,779,16078,16123,514,1879,1878,616,1119,52,33,1029,774,16126,1877,16059,777,32,536,35,47],"class_list":["post-64254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","tag-anglicanism","tag-anglo-catholic","tag-anglo-catholicism","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-apostolic-tradition","tag-baptists-and-sola-scriptura","tag-barely-protestant","tag-bible-only","tag-biblical-prooftexts","tag-biblical-theology","tag-canon-of-scripture","tag-catholic-church","tag-catholic-tradition","tag-christian-authority","tag-church-authority","tag-episcopalianism","tag-high-chuch-anglicanism","tag-infallible-authority","tag-is-sola-scriptura-biblical","tag-perspicuity-of-scripture","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-sacred-scripture","tag-scripture-alone","tag-sola-scriptura"],"yoast_head":"\n\n