Talk #5 REBUTTING THE SKELETAL PRINCIPLES OF PROTESTANTISM: “THE BIBLE ALONE”
INTRODUCTION
The plan for our redemption includes a teaching Church built on the “rock” of Peter. When Jesus promised in Mt. 16:18-19 that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, he meant that it would teach only truth, not error. Christ thus established his church to be the “pillar and bulwark of truth”, to exercise authority in proclaiming doctrines pertaining to faith and morals. This authority is exercised through the apostles and their successors in union with the Vicar of Christ. Christ declared - “Whoever listens to you is listening to Me and whoever rejectss yourejectsMe and Him who sent Me.” (Lk. 10:16) As St. Augustine puts it – “But for the authority of the Catholic Church, I would not believe the Gospel”.
Man in his fallen state does not like authority. He prefers to make his own rules. Satan’s proposal to Adam and Eve will always have resonance: man, rather than God, gets to decide what is right and wrong. Consequently, heresies persist from the beginning of the Church to the present. St. Irenaeus isolated the root of all heresies from within the Church as a refusal to accept the Church’s teaching authority as centered in the bishop of Rome.
The formal or skeletal principle of Protestant reformation is “Sola Scriptura” or the “Bible Alone” principle. Protestants hold that the bible alone is its rule of faith. They hold that Christ left no authoritative teaching Church, but only the Bible, which each individual may read and interpret for himself on the principle of “private judgment”. They have thus rejected outright the authority of the Church that Christ founded. Under this principle, they hold that:
(1) The Bible is plain and simple and can therefore be interpreted individually by its readers. Each reader, if he has faith in Christ and is prepared to rely entirely upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will be rendered infallible in his interpretation of scriptures by the Holy Spirit, and
(2) The bible is complete telling us all we need to know as regards doctrines to be believed and all that we need to know in order to conduct ourselves as Christians.
From this principle, Protestants have been able to formulate all sorts of doctrines that fit the specific personal and community circumstances of their followers.
2 Peter 1:20-21states in no uncertain terms – “Know this first of all, that there is no prophesy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophesy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy spirit spoke under the influence of God.”
TOP TENReasons to Reject “Sola Scriptura”
AThe Doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is not taught anywhere in the Bible.
This doctrine is self-refuting. There is not one verse anywhere in the Bible in which it is taught. The only scriptural passage that Protestants point to, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, contrary to their claim, does not in any way support the principle even though they try to make a case of it. It reads – “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, refuting error, for correcting and training Christian life. Through Scripture the man of God is made expert and thoroughly equipped for every good work” A close examination of the same, however, will show that the bible alone concept is not supported by this verse. The word used in verse 16 means, “useful” is not the same as “sufficient”. For instance, while water is useful for our existence, it is not sufficient. Furthermore, the “Scripture” that St. Paul is referring to is clearly the Old Testament. In verse 15, St. Paul made reference to the scriptures known by Timothy from “infancy”. The New Testament did not yet exist when Timothy was an infant. Even at the time of the writing of this letter, most of the New Testament was not available much less written. It is absurd of course to mean that only the Old Testament is the Christian’s “sole rule of faith”. It cannot also refer to the subsequently canonized scripture since at the time Paul wrote his letter, no one knew what the correct writings would be.
BThe Bible itself indicates that it is not complete.
The Bible confirms that “Jesus did many other things; if all were written down, the world itself would not hold the books recording them”. (Jn. 21:25). In 2 Thess. 2:15, St. Paul clearly states that these other things Jesus did and said are contained in sacred Traditions – “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” The Bible was not intended to be an all-inclusive handbook of how the Church should operate, be structured, and teach a Christian all they must know.
CThe Church, not the Bible, is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”.
The Bible was never meant to stand alone as a separate authority. It is the Church that preserves the deposit of the faith. It is very interesting to note that in 1 Tim. 3:15 we see, not the Bible, but the Church that is called “the pillar and foundation of the truth”. Of course, this passage is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the bible, but it is clearly intending to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authoritative teaching Church to be the guardian and preserver of his teachings. The Catholic Church will not compromise but rather teaches the Bible as it IS. For instance, the Catholic Church stands almost alone in teaching about divorce and re-marriage, THE WAY JESUS TAUGHT IT.
DThe Church, not the Bible, is the Final Authority to be appealed to in any Disagreement on Faith & Morals.
In Mt. 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. In this instance, Christ identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to in any disagreement among brothers. Note particularly that the authority of the Church will be exercised in “any disagreement” including, of course, disagreement in the interpretation of the passages in the bible. If the Bible is the only authority we need, why does Matthew tell us to go to the Church to settle disputes rather than the Bible?
Christ says that if an offending brother “will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” (Mt. 18:17) – that is, an outsider who is lost. Protestants argue that Jesus himself appeals to scripture, but in those instances, He, as one having authority, was teaching the Scriptures. Whenever He refers his hearers to the scriptures, he also provides his infallible, authoritative interpretation of them, demonstrating that the Scriptures do not interpret themselves.
In the Second Council of Lyons (March 21, 1272) it is declared that “The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Church . . . And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled.”
EThe Bible is not Plain and Simple. It Needs an Interpreter.
The Bible is not a simple story for simple people. We live hundreds and even thousands of years after the Bible was written and our language and customs are very different now. No book written at one age is easy for another age. The study of antiquities demands a knowledge of primitive language of which few are capable, and for which still fewer have the time. In the Acts of the Apostles, we read the account of the deacon St. Philip and the Ethiopian. In this scenario, the Holy Spirit leads Philip to approach the Ethiopian. When Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaiah, he asks “Do you really understand what you are reading?” The man replied: “How can I unless someone explains it to me?” Then Philip, in the name of the Church, interpreted the Scriptures for him. (Acts 8:27-39) The point here is that the Ethiopian’s statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not plain and simple, and people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says.
In 2 Peter 3:16, it is pointed out that there are “certain points in scriptures that are difficult to understand, which people who are ignorant and immature in their faith twist, as they do with the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting? Luther himself saw the futility of privately interpreting scriptures. When he saw the numerous sects growing and multiplying, he said – “There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophesies his ravings and dreams.” (An Meine Kritiker, p. 423) Luther saw that unqualified people were trying to place their judgment on a par with his, which development he found quite unacceptable. Their logic was flawless, however. “If you can place your interpretation of Scripture over that of the Pope and the entire Christian Tradition of sixteenth centuries, then why can’t we question you?”
Evangelicals and Fundamentalists claim that they only disagree on secondary matters and are united in essentials yet why are there so many conflicting understandings among them even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation, necessity of baptism, baptismal regeneration, to name only a few? The clear implication is that the same Church that authenticates the Bible, that establishes its inspiration, is the authority set up by Christ to interpret the Word and that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.
FIf the only Rule of Faith is the Bible, the Early Christians would not have had any Rule of Faith at all.
Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D. The Church existed for perhaps as long as twenty years before the first word of the New Testament was ever written. Furthermore, the Canon of the bible was not settled until 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. The Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written.
When the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, He did not deliver a book; He formed a Church. The Church, in turn, wrote the New Testament. How, then could the Church’s book contradict the Church’s teaching. The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries before a general agreement among Christians was reached as to which books comprised the New Testament. Furthermore, the Bible was not able to be mass-produced and readily available to individual believers until the advent of the printing press in the 15th century. Even then, it would have taken quite some time for large numbers of bibles to be printed and disseminated to the general population. The early Christians received the word as the word was preached to them. In 1 Peter 1:25, St. Peter assures that “the word is the good news which was preached to you.” To proclaim the Word is to preach the Word. Here Peter states that what has been preached is binding upon all those who have heard. What they have heard is binding.
GThe Holy Spirit was guaranteed to the Church, not to Individual Reader.
Protestants claim that the Holy Spirit can render each individual reader infallible in his interpretations provided he has faith in Christ and is prepared to rely entirely upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If every individual were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all who read Scripture sincerely would come to the same conclusion. The reality is that they arrive at a multitude of mutually exclusive conclusions in interpreting scriptures! The height of absurdity is reached by such extravagances as those of Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the Kentucky snake cults, to mention only a few. Catholics believe that Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Church and the Holy Spirit has always been present in the Church, teaching it all truth.
In Jn. 14: 25-26, Jesus at the Last Supper, promised to the twelve apostles to send the Holy Spirit to guide them, the leaders of the church, in a very special way. He said –
“I will ask the Father and He will give you another advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of Truth . . . He will dwell with you and be IN you. The Holy Spirit . . . will teach you all things and bring to your mind whatever I have told you.” In Jn. 16:13, Jesus said – “When the Spirit of Truth has come, He will teach you all Truths.
Reading scripture on our own is of course highly encouraged. In fact, our own St. Jerome states that Ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of Christ.” The Church allows us to search the Scriptures and seek out their meaning ourselves, using the best information available at any given time in history. The Church does not pronounce on the meaning of every verse of Scripture. There is no official interpretation of so many passages in scripture. Our own reading of the bible, however, never allows us to reject any of the teachings of the Church. For example, an interpretation of John 20:22-23 that excluded a connection with the Sacrament of Reconciliation must be rejected. One must accept all of the teachings of Christ through his Church to guide him in the formation of his conscience. The catechism would be a great guide when you study the bible. The Church has set certain parameters in our interpretation of scriptures and we are not allowed to go beyond those parameters. Another instance of these parameters is the fact that the Church has interpreted scriptures strictly and totally rejecting divorce and re-marriage.
Interpreting scriptures on our own can be very much affected by our own cultural heritage, our experience of worship, the examples of other Christians around us, the particular slant of translators and biblical commentators, our own human error, moral weakness and fallible human judgments.
HThe Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.
This simple fact that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura did not exist before John Wycliffe (forerunner of Protestantism) in the 14th century and did not become widespread until Martin Luther came along in the 16th century, is conveniently overlooked or ignored by Protestants. The doctrine not only lacks the historical continuity that marks legitimate apostolic teaching, but it actually represents an abrupt change, a radical break with the Christian past.
IThe Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division, Disunity and Moral Relativism
The obvious fruit of Sola Scriptura is the splintering of Christianity into at least 50,000 denominations and continuing to split up at the rate of at least one denomination per week! Each of these denominations claims to have the Bible as it’s only guide, each of which claims to be preaching the truth, yet each of which teaches something different from the others. Consequently, even matters of morals become relative. If each person relied on his own opinion to determine what was right or wrong, we would have nothing more than moral relativism, and each person could rightly assert his own set of standards. In this regard, one should be reminded of Christ’s own words: “For by the fruit the tree is known.” (Mt. 12:33). By this standard, the historical testimony afforded by Protestantism demonstrates that the tree of Sola Scriptura is producing bad fruit.
JThe Protestant Bible is Missing 7 Entire Books
The Protestants do not have the deuterocanonical books by Catholics, namely: Tobias (Tobit), Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabbees, Wisdom, Ecclesiastics (or Sirach), and Baruch. Portions of Daniel and Esther are also missing. The New Testament quotes the Old Testament about 350 times, and in approximately 150 of those instances, the quotation is taken from the missing books. How can an incomplete scripture be the only rule of one’s faith?
IISACRED OR APOSTOLIC TRADITION
AIntroduction
CCC Par. 82 states that – “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.”
From the very beginning, the Church has never operated as though the Scriptures were an all-sufficient guide to faith. In his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, St. Paul exhorts the community there to “hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter.” (2:15)