To Give a Defense
Protestant apologists are creative and tireless in their efforts to find sola scriptura in the Bible. They are undaunted by refutation. When told that Acts 17:11, or 2 Tim. 3:16, do not support the doctrine, they do not attempt further defense; they simply move on to the next verse. In this way, perhaps Catholics could, in time, get them to run the circuit through every last one. That would be one way to have fun with our separated brothers. Not only is sola scriptura in the Bible; the Bible talks about nothing else.
A little over a year ago (here), I took a look at six verses that the polemical rogue Mr. John Bugay had cited in an attempt to defend this heretical doctrine: Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Rev. 22:18-19, Luke 16:29, Ps. 16:5, and Ps. 119:105. In my article, I reached this conclusion:
Sola scriptura is not in the Bible. What proponents must do—what they can only do—is to take some passage that speaks well of scripture, however generally, and derive from that some principle of exclusivity.
It is 2014, and there is nothing new under the Geneva sun but vanity and vanity. On Saturday, no less a personage than TurretinFan was, once more, kicking against the goads. (TF, by virtue of his anonymity and his bold persistence in odd arguments, is known on this blog as the Amazing and Undaunted Mr. X of Calvinism.) Prompted by some questions on Catholic Answers, Mr. X discovered four new proof-texts for sola scriptura. They are these: John 20:31, Rom. 3:4, Deut. 13:1-5, and Gal. 1:8.
WRITTEN THAT YOU MAY BELIEVE
JOHN 20:31
If for no other reason than to be tireless along with Turretin, I will take these verses up one by one. Here is St. John:
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)
According to Mr. X, this verse illustrates sola scriptura because “a person could pick up John’s gospel, read it, believe it, and receive eternal life in that way.” He goes on to explain that sola scriptura simply means that “Scripture is unique—there is nothing else like Scripture.”
Well, if that’s all that it means, I don’t know how anyone could dispute it. Certainly no Catholic I know would. But that is not what the doctrine of sola scriptura states, at least not according to Dr.* James White of Alpha & Omega Sophistries, in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy
-
Sola scriptura says that Scripture is the sole “infallible rule of faith.”
-
Sola scriptura says that all the doctrines one is required to accept as a Christian are found in Scripture.
-
Sola scriptura says that whatever is not found in Scripture is not binding upon Christians.
Dr.* White (Th.D., D.Min., etc., etc.) says nothing about Scripture being “unique.” To be honest, I am not sure what it means to say that Scripture is unique. Lots of things are unique. Mr. X’s blog is unique. The polemical rogue Mr. Bugay is unique. Pi is unique. The aurora borealis is unique. Dr.* White’s massive pate is unique. So many things are unique that Scripture is hardy unique in being unique. The observation that Scripture is unique, while true, is trite; it proves nothing.
What we have in John 20:31, as strangled out of sense by Mr. X, is a verse that proves too little and too much. It says that by reading the words written in St. John’s gospel, one may believe and have eternal life. But sola scriptura does not state that Scripture is the sole source for knowledge of the divinity of Christ, and for eternal life. Nor does St. John even say that; he says that his gospel was wriitten so that one may believe “that Jesus is the Christ,” but he does not go so far as to claim that that knowledge may not be acquired elsewhere.
And even if he did, and even if that were sola scriptura, would it not in fact mean that one should believe in sola Johanneum? It is not enough to throw out the Deuterocanon; there are 65 more books to get rid of, too. For St. John did not say, “Scripture was written so that you may believe”; he said, “My gospel was written so that you may believe.” If there is a sola in that, it’s a sola that goes much farther than Mr. X would want it to go.
EVERY MAN IS FALSE
ROMANS 3:4
In his quest to find a verse that illustrates the “unique” character of Scripture—as though anyone denies that, or as though that is part of the definition of sola scriptura—Mr. X stumbles upon Romans 3:4. Here is the verse in context:
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. (Romans 3:3-4)
Now watch how Mr. X exegetes this verse: “This emphasizes the crucial distinction between God’s words and men’s words.” But in fact, if you read the verse in context (for Mr. X fails to quote verse 3), it is clear that the dinstinction St. Paul is emphasizing is not between God’s Word and men’s words, but between men’s faithlessness to God and God’s faithfulness to keep his covenant.
The relevance of this distinction to the doctrine of sola scriptura is unclear. One feels—as one so often does when reading Mr. X—that the Protestant apologist is just dashing through his concordance in a panic for any instance of the word “word” in Scripture, and then claiming the verse is a proof of sola scriptura, irrespective of what the verse is in fact talking about. In this way, John 1:1 would become a proof-text for sola scriptura, even though the clear subject of the verse is the divinity of Christ.
KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS
DEUTERONOMY 13:1-5
Perhaps sensing his pitiable failure to force sola scriptura upon Paul, Mr. X, the amazing and undaunted, tries again—this time with a long passage from the Pentateuch.
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
According to Mr. X, “The point to take away from that passage is that even if someone has authority that appears to be attested by working wonders, the person’s message should be judged by the Scriptures.” While superficially that is true, it is also an extraordinarily broad exegesis that misses the specificity of what this passage is talking about.
According to this passage, the goal of the “prophet or dreamer of dreams,” in working his “sign” or “wonder,” is to entice the Jews “to go after other gods.” That is to say, Scripture is not warning us against following other rules of faith; it is warning us against serving other gods. The danger is not that people will suddenly start listening to the Magisterium, but that people will suddenly start worshipping Baal or Moloch. Deut. 13:1-5 is an exegesis of the first commandment; the nature of Scripture is not the subject, but the nature of God.
A GOSPEL CONTRARY
GALATIANS 3:8
In one last brave effort, Mr. X cites Galatians 1:8.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As Mr. X explains the passage, Paul is warning the Galatians against additions to the written testimony of Scripture regarding the character of the Gospel. What he overlooks is the key word παρ’, par’. This is rendered “any other” in the KJV, but is best translated “contrary,” as the NASB does. St. Paul does not warn the Galatians against additional sources of gospel knowledge; he warns against false gospels. Presumably, if extra-biblical sources exist which are not contrary to what he preached, Paul would have no difficulty with them. At least, he does not say otherwise in this passage. Catholics do not claim that extra-biblical rules of faith are “contrary”; they claim that they are additional. The text just does not address the nature of the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics when it comes to sola scriptura.
THE POLEMICAL ROGUE SAYS HERE, THAT HE DON’T NEED TO PROVE SQUAT
But although Mr. X has not tired of inventing new proof-texts for sola scriptura, Mr. Bugay seems to have given up all hope. Perhaps the polemical rogue, upon reading Mr. X’s post, thought to himself: This will never work. That pesky blogger Alt will have this refuted before the coffee’s cold.
Thus Mr. Bugay’s new gambit is to deny that Protestants need to find a verse at all. Instead, attempting to shift the burden of proof, Mr. Bugay says that it is Catholics who must prove that God established the Magisterium as the infallible interpreter of Scripture. That, according to Mr. Bugay, is “the true issue.” Catholic apologists who ask “Where is sola scriptura in the Bible?” do not understand “the true issue.”
At its heart, Mr. Bugay’s claim is a false dichotomy, in that it assumes that there is a difference between affirming the positive and denying the negative. If I wanted to prove that 2+2=4, one way to do it would be to show that 2+2≠5. That would not by itself prove that 2+2=4, but if a lot of people were asserting that 2+2=5, showing that they are wrong would be an important step in the direction of truth. Thus, one way to prove the authority of the Magisterium is to prove that the contrary claim of sola scriptura is false.
Thus the importance of the question: Where is sola scriptura in the Bible? For if the Bible alone is the source of all that must be believed by Christians, and if sola scriptura is one doctrine that must be believed by all Christians, then it follows (as a point of elementary logic) that sola scriptura must be in the Bible. Well, where is it, Mr. Bugay? Can you cite a verse—just one verse—that will hold up to scrutiny? I am willing to go through every verse of every book, if you like. But the polemical rogue denies he needs to do any such thing.
Roman Catholics who are in a mind to observe the New Evangelization, if they are going to have any semblance of credibility in Protestant-vs.-Catholic discussions, are going to need to show their fundamental honesty by speaking out against Roman Catholics who continue to ask this question.
This is the bullying tactic of a desperate man. These are the words of someone who knows he is beaten, who knows that sola scriptura is not in the Bible, and who wishes to hide his defeat by getting Catholics to shut up about it. For if sola scriptura were in the Bible, all Mr. Bugay would have to do is point out where, and the debate would be over.
But I have news for Mr. Bugay: We are not going to shut up about it. We are going to keep asking the question. It is not dishonest to ask the question. What is dishonest, Mr. Bugay, is to assert a doctrine, and then claim that you don’t have to prove it from the only source of authority you accept, and that everyone else should just be quiet about it.
Good luck getting us to do that.
***
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.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In