Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura

 Would it Matter if Catholics Affirmed Sola Scriptura?

Does Anything Actually Follow from Sola Scriptura?
    In what follows I will show that it would not matter if a Catholic were to affirm the foundational Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura (“Scripture Alone”). In fact, I will show that nothing relevant to the Catholic/Protestant debate actually follows from Sola Scriptura at all.

What Is Sola Scriptura?
    Although strict definitions of Sola Scriptura do not always agree, Protestant sources from Evangelicals to Reformed Baptists, and from scholarly to popular sources paint the following basic picture:
    When it comes to Christian faith, the Bible (Scripture) is the one and only authority. There is nothing else and there can never be anything else. Period.
    Here are some examples of this affirmation from ten highly acclaimed Evangelical and Protestant sources:

• The Westminster Confession of Faith: “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture”

• Michael Kruger: “the Scriptures alone are the Word of God and, therefore, the only infallible rule for life and doctrine”

• R. C. Sproul: “the Bible alone has the authority of God Himself to bind our consciences absolutely”.

• James White: “Scripture is utterly unique in its nature as God-breathed revelation (nothing else is God-breathed); it is unparalleled and absolute in its authority; and it is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.” (Scripture Alone, 14)

• Norman Geisler: “Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals).”

• John MacArthur: “Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter on which it speaks.”

• Got Questions: “Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian.”

• C.A.R.M.: “the Scriptures alone are the final and the highest authority.”

• The Gospel Coalition: “All other authorities in the Christian life serve underneath Scripture, while Scripture alone rules over other authorities, for it alone is God’s inspired, inerrant, and sufficient word.”

• Christian Research Institute: “Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals).”

    Okay, nothing new to see there.
    Now for the mic drop:

    Catholics wouldn’t have a problem affirming this basic principle if it wasn’t abused by Protestants.

Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
    Here’s the weird thing about Sola Scriptura:
    It is said to be the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation, the foundational theory upon which Protestant theology is built. It is (allegedly) because of the Protestantism’s high view of – and sole reliance upon – the Bible that they reject many aspects of Catholic theology.
    But the Catholic Church itself teaches that only Sacred Scripture is inspired (“God-breathed”), and a Catholic should have little problem affirming that Sacred Scripture is the highest authority for the Christian. 
(Since the Bible alone contains God’s inspired words, how could it not be?)
    The Church itself teaches that The Church is not above Scripture – so it cannot authoritatively and truthfully contradict Scripture any more than a cultist or an atheist can.

    At this point, Protestants and Catholics have very little to get worked up about.

    So what (allegedly) makes Sola Scriptura "just for Protestants"?

Catholic Tradition vs. Sacred Scripture
    It is popular among Protestant commenters to claim that what separates Catholics from Protestants is the value of Church Tradition as being equal to that of the Bible. Their insistence on separatism not withstanding, Ron Rhodes says Protestants believe “the Bible alone is the final authority and source of divine revelation (not tradition…)”
(Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics, 12 – emphasis in original).

    Rhodes describes cultish behavior in much the same way:
    “When dealing with cults, as we know them in culutre, one must keep in mind that they are always built not upon what the Bible teaches, but upon what the founders or leaders of the respective cults SAY the Bible teaches”
(Norman L. Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations, Introduction).

    Now, only groups on the fringe of the Reformation saw Sola Scriptura as a total denial of the importance of Christian tradition (the so-called “Radical Reformation” which gave rise to the Anabaptists). Martin luther didn't discount the Tradition that made the Church what it is. But some did in his time...people he called, “fanatics.”

    To be fair, more theologically sophisticated, mainstream Protestants might give a conditional authority to Tradition, so long as Scripture is the, “only unquestioned authority for faith and practice.” Of course, they get irked with Catholics, because they enjoy a dual source of tradition, whereby Scripture and Tradition are both of equal value.
(Kenneth Collins and Jerry Walls, Roman but Not Catholic, 27).
    
    Any difference between Catholic and Protestant teachings is then blamed on the assumption that Catholics eagerly allow Tradition to usurp Sacred Scripture.
    The problem here is that Protestants cannot grasp that Catholics aren't afraid to have Tradition alongside Scripture. They are ignorant of the concept that one can hold more than one idea in the mind, and still be able to function. Therefore, they reckon that Catholics must be either adding to, or contradicting Scripture because of Tradtion.

    And for them, it’s is a tidy package that automatically makes them feel superior. But is it defensible (or even consistent)?

    The first problem for the Protestant here is that all Christians believe more than what Scripture teaches.

For example, which books belong in the Bible in the first place!
Or which doctrines counts as “essential” teachings of the faith.
The validity of a “Youth Pastor,” or any other preacher.
Sunday school should be 2 hours long.
Etc. etc.

    If accused of being, “unbiblical” for doing so, the Protestant will likely respond that it’s ok - because none of these things contradict what Scripture teaches.
    That seems legitimate, actually – and because of that, Catholics can do it too! So, thanks to the Protestants for affirming that.

    The second problem for the Protestant is trying to to show that Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture, and is just a, “human tradition.” For example, in a textbook circular argument, Collins and Walls conclude that Catholic, “merely human teachings,” are identifiable because they are, “at variance with the clear teaching of sacred Scripture.”
(Kenneth Collins and Jerry Walls, Roman but Not Catholic, 29).

Not only has this attack on Catholicism not been proven, except in fallacy argument – it is easy to show that Protestants are guilty of doing it themselves.

Protestant Tradition vs. Sacred Scripture
    In reality, it’s just as easy for Catholics to accuse Protestants of following the, “traditions of men,” because their beliefs are at “variance with the clear teaching of sacred Scripture.”

    WAIT - WHAT DID I JUST SAY??!
    Yep, here are a few, “clear teaching of sacred Scripture” that many, most, or all Protestants deny due to their theological traditions:

• FAITH AND WORKS: “A man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

• BAPTISM: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21).

• COMMUNION: “Any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29 cf. John 6:54; Matt. 26:26).

• THE CHURCH: “The church of the living God [is] the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)

• ORAL TRADITIONS: “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
  
  How is it that Protestants can concoct all manner of sidestep logic to, “deny these clear teachings of sacred Scripture,” if they truly believe in Sola Scriptura?

    Doesn’t doing so reduce these Protestant concoction to merely human teachings?
    The Protestant response to this charge is inevitably that they don’t deny those verses, they just self-interpret them to mean something other than what the Catholic Church shows them to mean.

    Well, only God can judge them for that, but we'll call that fair – and it ALSO proves the Catholic Church’s point, not the Protestant’s!

    In other words, if they can do it, anyone else can, too. It's not their exclusive territory.
And, in fact, they didnt even give themselves the privilege to do it until 1500+ years of Christianity had passed.

Why Sola Scriptura Doesn’t Really Matter    
    So there's the quesion:

Q. How does leaning on Sola Scriptura make their disagreements the exclusive territory of Protestants only?

And heres the answer:

A. They give themselves that option

    What Catholics affirm, and Protestants deny (in practice, if not theory), is that while Sacred Scripture is the only inspired writing, in order to function as an authority it must be rightly interpreted.
    The thing is, all Christians rely on either...

    A. Their own particular group’s interpretive “traditions” to define what they think the Bible says

Or,

    B. Their own private intepretation to define what they think the Bible says.

    This is why Baptists can “deny” 1 Peter 3:21 on salvation
- Why Calvinists can “deny” Hebrews 6:4-6 on the possibility of losing salvation
- Why Armenians can “deny” James 5:19-20 on the perseverance of the saints - Why all Protestants can “deny” James 2:24 on the relation of faith and works

     It always comes down to that - interpretation.
    They aren’t denying these verses, rather, they deny someone else’s interpretive tradition in favor of their own. But since THEY all cling to their own interpretive tradition, and deny any interpretation they do not hold to...why do they get all cocked up and accuse only Catholics of, “elevating tradition over Scripture”?

    So lets switch gears here for a minute, and clarify that The Catholic Church simply acknowledges reality in this matter.
    That is, the authority of Sacred Scripture is – in a sense – mediated through interpretation:

“The Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (CCC 80-82).

    What The Church teaches about the authority of Scripture and Tradition is only what is true in reality: while the Bible alone is the highest authority, in itself, the practical authority for faith and practice is really one’s understanding of Scripture (i.e., interpretive tradition).

So what really distinguishes Protestants from Catholics?
    It is not that Protestants follow the Bible alone, and Catholics replace Scripture’s authority with that of Church tradition. Rather, it is that Protestants and Catholics simply follow different traditions.
    Now, Protestants will howl at that, complaining that the Church goes beyond a tradition of strict biblical interpretation, to having things the Bible doesn’t have expressly written. They have had 500 years of training to say that, and they're not wrong. The Church does have things that arent expressly written inthe Bible.
    But get ready, because here it comes:

    In that case, no one can rightfully say the Bible is being contradicted. I mean, if a particular subject in question isn’t written expressly in the Bible, then the Bible’s singular and high authority isn’t being violated.

    So Catholics could claim Sola Scriptura, while continuing to affirm the same doctrines they do now!

The Bible Verse That Destroys Sola Scriptura
    It might seem that because Protestants make all the noise on this field, that have the upper hand in this battle of interpretive traditions. Since they have fewer beliefs that rely on The Church’s unwritten Tradition – or they just give themselves a hall pass and ignore Tradition altogether - they can stand on their hill and shout their hurrahs.
    However, even though these dogmas appear remote or abstract to those who deny them, the Church roots these teachings in Scripture – much like it does the Trinity or Christ’s Incarnation. Much as The Church does with everything, for that matter.
    And of course, the canon of Scripture, itself, could not be derived from Scripture alone, so that gives Church Tradition a massively important role in doctrinal formation.
    Likewise, the Bible doesn’t say that direct and express scriptural support is necessary to establish doctrines of faith, so the Sola Scriptura Protestant cannot say the Church is being unbiblical for its position on Scripture.
    Really the only way to prove the Catholic Church is unbiblical is to show that what it teaches is a clear contradiction of expressly written Scripture – and not that a particular teaching contradicts how a Protestant might interpret of Scripture.

    And THIS is where Protestantism fails in its attack on the Catholic Church.

    There is no verse in Scripture that the teachings of the Catholic Church contradict. If Protestants could find one, it would be shouted from the roof tops!
    But even if there was a verse that the Catholic Church seemed to directly contradict, it would not resolve the Catholic-Protestant debate because Protestantism was indeed founded on a direct contradiction of Scripture!
    The teaching (which allegedly followed from Sola Scriptura) that launched the Reformation is another “sola” namely, Sola Fide. This is generally understood as meaning that people are justified (“saved”) by faith alone, without any kind of works being needed.        The problem is that even Jesus admitted that he performed works before the Pharisee's, and the only verse in Scripture that even comes close to using that terminology is James 2:24 – and it says people are,“justified by works and not by faith alone.”
    Where this boondoggle about, “faith alone” comes from is Martin Luther. He supposedly meant ONLY faith is all there is, but he explained this to mean that faith by itself without something to attach to, some tangible effect, or some literal human action - that is, without works – faith then is just an abstract sentiment floating around without root.
    So it gets tough for the Protestant at this point. As seen in the comments on this video, the only way out of their contradictions is to assert their, “interpretive tradition” over against the verse’s, “clear teachings.”
    Which, again, is fine – everyone does it. But it undermines the claim that Protestants follow strict Sola Scriptura while Catholics add unbiblical, “traditions of men.”

    In that case, anyone can claim Sola Scriptura if Scripture can mean anything!

Conclusion
    Protestantism itself bears testimony to the fact that Sola Scriptura is (practically speaking) a theological smokescreen.
    The fact that hundreds of disagreeing denominational groups all point to Sacred Scripture as their only source of faith and practice demonstrates that interpretive traditions are really what drive their theology.
    When one surveys the vast landscape of incompatible beliefs that followed the Reformation, even in Luthers day, it is incredible that Catholics (alone) are attacked on the basis that they acknowledge the obviously necessary role of tradition in biblical interpretation.
    An uninterpreted Bible cannot function as a religious authority, and the Bible is always interpreted according to some interpretive tradition. The real issue, then, is which interpretive tradition to follow.

In this debate, it is between...

A. The Church’s interpretive tradition that has existed since the time of Christ. This is the interpretive tradition that determined the very canon of Scripture itself, and which produced the very works that are in the Scriptures (as well as the universal orthodox teachings on the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.)

Or...

B. One of hundreds, maybe thousands, of conflicting interpretive traditions that arose 1,500 years later – and since - in opposition to that Church’s teachings.

The choice is there. Be careful in making it.

edited for this format from a blog post by: Douglas Beaumont / July 6, 2022