Sola Scriptura - a Study of Alleged Proof Texts

The Failure of the Proof Text

Sola Scriptura – the Bible Alone – is the Rule of Faith for many Protestants. Any point of belief or practice which cannot find a clear reference in Holy Scripture is rejected. Very many key points of Catholic belief and practice do not, in fact, find an explicit, unambiguous exposition in the Bible. The Catholic Church insists that none of these points actually contradicts anything in Scripture, and that the Tradition of the Church, Guided by the Holy Spirit, had preserved many things in the Message and the Action of Christ in establishing His Church, which are not recorded explicitly in the Bible; in fact, that the Bible itself is part of Tradition.

.

I respectfully suggest that the criterion of Sola Scriptura probably had some initial plausibility in the heady atmosphere of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, when various abuses, which had been allowed to develop within the Catholic Church for many generations, were being exposed.

.

In fact, there was a comprehensive reform of the Church in the later Fifteenth to Seventeenth Centuries – the Catholic Reformation – but by then, contrary attitudes had become well entrenched.

.

Once the principle of Sola Scriptura had become entrenched, however, two problems emerged. Both hinged around the question of Authority. The Catholic Church claimed that Her authority derived from an unbroken succession from the Apostles – the Apostolic Succession. Many Protestants claimed the written word of Scripture to be their final authority. By now, however, this principle was firmly wedded by the Protestors to a rejection of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and with it, the Catholic understanding of the Sacraments, which were intimately associated with the priesthood. It is notable that 'interpretations' of scriptural passages by Evangelical Protestants always deny the Sacramental Priesthood, no matter how tortuous their interpretation needs to be. But once the heat of battle had abated, two intractable problems remained. One was the problem of the actual contents of the Bible. There is no evidence that the so-called "Canon of Scripture" was decided before the late Fourth Century at the earliest. [Some Protestant Sects teach that there was always 'a Remnant' who kept the pure Biblical Religion – meaning that practised by modern day Biblical Protestants – and even that they were persecuted by the Catholic Church in the earliest centuries. There is not a scrap of evidence to back this suggestion.] The second problem can be put like this: if it is really true that the whole Christian Faith is to be found in the Bible, then obviously this article of Faith must itself be found in the Bible. Yet it is NOWHERE in the Bible.

A typical claim from Sola Scriptura advocates is as follows:

2 Tim 3: 16--17, says God's word is all we need.

REPLY: It is the other way round. Let us examine the passage.

2 Tim 3: 16--17... “16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Comment: This is indeed the main 'proof text' offered by the Sola Scriptura protagonists. But instead of proving their claim, if anything it does the opposite.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable ..."

This does not answer the point under discussion. Of course Scripture is profitable. Whoever said it was not? The question was, "Is it all-sufficient?" This is not what S. Paul says to Timothy.

Sola Scriptura advocate: All scripture is given by inspiration of God...

REPLY: Good so far. But what exactly do we mean by 'All Scripture?' How much of the New Testament had even been written? And what of the Old was taken as 'All Scripture'? The very name 'Timothy is Greek for 'The Fear of the Lord'. Most of the then Diaspora had already abandoned the Aramaic language as a vernacular, and only the learned knew Hebrew. The Bible they used was the Septuagint. And the collection known as the Septuagint contained the Books of Maccabees, in which it is written, "It is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they be loosed from their sins'. Therefore, not only is Paul telling Timothy that 'All Scripture is profitable', he is exhorting him to pray for the dead.

What he is NOT doing is telling him that nothi̇ng except what is found explicitly in the Written Scriptures as they appeared in the Sixteenth Century (but excluding those written only in the Greek Canon) is to be accepted. All of this is an invention of the Protestants long after. Having jumped to this conclusion in the heat of debate, they then had to justify it. This verse is the best they could find, but it does not actually say what they want it to say.

.

Sola Scriptura advocate: 2 Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works”

REPLY: Exactly. The project is that Timothy, the Man of God - the Overseer – in Greek, 'to Episcopos' - or as we pronounce it in English, the Bishop (because it is the same word) – who was consecrated by the laying on of hands – “Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands" (2 Timothy 1:6). .... the project is that he will become perfect. And 'all Scripture' (including the Books of Maccabees) is profitable for this. Nowhere at all does S. Paul say in this that *only* Scripture, especially Scripture as printed in modern Protestant Bibles, is all-sufficient.

Thus the offered proof text does not prove what it purports to prove. The Sola Scriptura case falls to the ground.

=

Here are the other proffered Proof Texts, with replies.

=

"Do not go beyond what is written" is one of the innumerable verses that the Protestants "wrest" out of context to make their point. (c.f. 2Peter 3:16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.) This use of the single phrase is untenable (to give only one reason out of many) because it contradicts Paul's express command in 2 Thess. 2:15 to "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours". Thus, for 1 Corinthians 4:6 to support the theory of sola scriptura, Paul would have been demanding adherence to the written word only, in one epistle, and in another urging fastidious adherence to both written and oral tradition.

=

Rev 22: 18--19

I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book [houtos biblion] : if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book...

REPLY: Almost any serious Biblical commentary will read to this effect:

***The reference here is to the book of Revelation only – for at that time the books that now constitute what we call the Bible were not collected into a single volume. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced as referring to the whole of the sacred Scriptures.***

The English word 'Bible' is from the Latin bíblia: this is in the plural, and means "The Books" or even "The Scrolls" ...

Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. This was repeated at the Council of Carthage in AD397. The Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) was written around AD 100, nearly 200 years before the bible was even defined. It was another century before bound 'codices' were invented, and the 'books' assembled in one bound copy.

There is absolutely no historical evidence to back the rash claim that a compilation of books, identical to that of the KJB, existed in the first five centuries of the Church (or even for a further thousand years).

Just think: what would you say to the Catholics if we claimed that the line of Popes was unbroken since Peter, but that we could produce no list for the first sixteen centuries? Yet this is what some groups do when they assert that there was a hidden remnant of Sola Scriptura believers at that time (equipped with the KJB.) This, I regret to say, is purest fantasy.

To attempt to extend this passage, Rev 22:18, which clearly refers only to the actual Apocalypse, – or the Book of Revelation – to a bound copy of the KJB: is completely indefensible.

The declaration, "I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book [houtos biblion] : if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book..." was a standard formulation at the conclusion of prophetic books, and would have been well familiar to readers.

The Book of Enoch, Ch 104v 8 has a similar formula.

[N.B.]: This Book, written during the second century B.C., is one of the most important non-canonical apocryphal works, and probably had a huge influence on early Christian beliefs. Filled with hallucinatory visions of heaven and hell, angels and devils, Enoch introduced concepts such as fallen angels, the appearance of a Messiah, Resurrection, a Final Judgement, and a Heavenly Kingdom on Earth. See e.g. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/index.htm

==

Psalm 19 (18):7; The Law of the Lord is Perfect.

REPLY: True indeed. But in these days, the Law of the Lord is embodied in the Catholic Church. the text says, 'The Law of the Lord', not 'the written text in the King James Version'.

=

Deu 4:2

You shall not add to the word WHICH I COMMAND YOU, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. [my capitals]

REPLY: Sola Scriptura advocates are in the habit of lifting any phrase from anywhere in the Bible and applying it to the present day, or exclusively to what they see as the failures of the Catholic Church. But this entwines them in hopeless absurdities, as we shall see below.

Deut 28: 14.

... And if you do not turn aside from any of the words WHICH I COMMAND YOU THIS DAY, to the right hand or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them [my capitals]

REPLY: So what is the background to this? It is to be found at the very beginning of this Book of Deuteronomy...

Deu 1:1 These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Haze'roth, and Di'zahab.

Deu 1:8 Behold, I have set the land before you; go in and take possession of the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to their descendants after them.'

Deu 3:28, 29 But charge Joshua, and encourage and strengthen him; for he shall go over at the head of this people, and he shall put them in possession of the land which you shall see.' So we remained in the valley opposite Beth-pe'or.

Deu 4:1–6

"And now, O Israel, give heed to the statutes and the ordinances which I teach you, and do them; that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, gives you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did at Ba'al-pe'or; for the LORD your God destroyed from among you all the men who followed the Ba'al of Pe'or; but you who held fast to the LORD your God are all alive this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land which you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them; for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'

Therefore, the passage quoted is from a long discourse delivered by Moses to the Israelites when they were about to enter the promised Land: it was their Code of Conduct.

Now the Catholic Church, the Guardian of Sacred Scripture, will tell us that certain of these ordinances were appropriate for their own time, of violence and barbaism, but no longer apply to us in the New Testament. furthermore, Christ Himself added to and refined the Laws under which the Israelites had lived.

One could have added Deu 28:14...

And the LORD will make you the head, and not the tail; and you shall tend upward only, and not downward; if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day, being careful to do them, and if you do not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

=

REPLY: But there is a catch....

What about these commandments and ordinances, that Moses read to them in the very same oration?

Deu 11:20 And you shall write [these words of mine] upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates...

REPLY: Did anybody do this?

Deu 12:5-6 But you shall seek the place which the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitation there; thither you shall go, and thither you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the offering that you present, your votive offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock...

REPLY: So did you?

Deu 12:15-16 "However, you may slaughter and eat flesh within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which he has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the hart. 1Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water.

REPLY: I eat black pudding; do you?

Deu 14:7-19 Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these [etc]

REPLY: A long list of clean and unclean animals. Do you follow these dietary rules?

Deu 16:1,2 "Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover to the LORD your God; for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you out of Egypt by night.

And you shall offer the passover sacrifice to the LORD your God, from the flock or the herd, at the place which the LORD will choose, to make his name dwell there...

Deu 16:4,5 No leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory for seven days; nor shall any of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day remain all night until morning. You may not offer the passover sacrifice within any of your towns which the LORD your God gives you (etc)

REPLY: so do you do all this?

=

Deu 16:9-10 "You shall count seven weeks; begin to count the seven weeks from the time you first put the sickle to the standing grain. Then you shall keep the feast of weeks to the LORD your God...

REPLY: this is the Feast of Pentecost. Do you keep it like this?

Deu 16:13-15 "You shall keep the feast of booths [Tabernacles] seven days, when you make your ingathering from your threshing floor and your wine press; you shall rejoice in your feast, ... For seven days you shall keep the feast to the LORD your God at the place which the LORD will choose; because the LORD your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful.

REPLY: this is the Feast of Tabernacles. Do you keep it like this?

.

Deu 20:10, 12-16 "When you draw near to a city to fight against it... if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them,

REPLY: Is that how you behave in war? Did you enjoy the women? Or weren't they very enjoyable?

.

[Hint: it is widely believed in Ireland, in all seriousness, that Oliver Cromwell took these words literally when he came to Ireland on his campaign of genocide. His armies were more brutal than anything seen since the Barbarian Invasions. Here are the fruits of Sola ßScriptura.]

We're not finished...

=

Deu 10:14 "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave [KJV: thou shalt not make merchandise of her], since you have humiliated her.

REPLY: comment superfluous?

=

Deu 21:18 "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, 21 ...then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

REPLY: ??

.

GENERAL COMMENT: Is this not a patent demonstration of the folly of lifting one phrase out of the Old Testament and applying it to an entirely different situation? Yet this is done regularly by advocates of Sola Scriptura.

.

To continue:

Joshua 1: 7. Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law WHICH MOSES MY SERVANT COMMANDED YOU; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go.

.

[REPLY: My capitals]. Did Moses command us to reject anything not found in the New Testament? Or to reject 2Maccabees? How much more obvious could it be that this passage is being "wrested" out of its context?

=

Proverbs 30: 6.

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

REPLY: OK; here are some of His Words:

Luke 22:19; This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. The Greek text reads:

ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν 'do this, directed to my memory'.

Mt 16:18

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death [Greek text has 'Gates of Hades'] shall not prevail against it.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall [have been] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall [have been] loosed in heaven."

John 20:22-3 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

REPLY: It is the Catholic Church that keeps these words of Christ.

=

Gal 1: 6--9.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--

not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

REPLY: All well and good. But what is the Gospel? Nowhere does it say that it is confined to the written word of Scripture as we have it from the late 5th century.

==

Sola Scriptura advocate: So if not Bible only, What else is there?.

REPLY: The Catholic Church, Divinely protected from Error in matters of Faith and Morals. That is why Christ established Her.

.

I don't want to sound offensive, but this collection of texts only goes to prove that the Bible does not at all make the claim that it is the one and only source of belief and practice.

.

Sola Scriptura advocates wil say: The Catholics added those extra books that weren't inspired by God, because there are some verses in them that the Catholics use to build their erroneous doctrines.

REPLY: It's the other way round.

I have come to believe that the Sola Scriptura movement was not really a movement of fidelity to Scripture, but a Rebellion against the Catholic Church. This is proven by the fact that attempts were made by Luther to exclude the Books that contained most clearly the articles of Faith that would have to be rejected.

+++++++

My personal advice to a Catholic discussing doctrine or religious practice with a Sola Scriptura advocate: Be courteous but firm. There is no excuse for them to begin a discussion with the unspoken assumption that, if a direct reference is not to be found in Scripture, it disproves a Catholic proposition. One may legitimately retort:

I must counter with this question, "Where in Scripture does it state that every word or practice must be found, in so many words, in Scripture?" The fact is, that it is to be found nowhere. Where did it come from, the notion that we could take the Bible away from the Church and use it in a vacuum? There is no evidence that this was ever the rule of any community before the breakup of Christendom. Until Protestants can show that this is a valid basis for judging, it is useless to argue from it.

=======