What would really have happened If Sola Scriptura were true?
PROLOGUE
Now over the years I have noticed a consistent theme in the interpretations favoured by Sola Scriptura adherents. The thing is that, some Scriptural passages are stating perennial norms, while others were suited to one period of time, or place, but not all. Likewise, certain passages are to be taken literally, and others metaphorically or allegorically. And the Biblical text is not colour-coded to distinguish the different shades of meaning. Now it seems to me that there could be few statements more straightforward than "This is My Body". Yet Sola Scriptura adherents nearly always refuse to accept the literal meaning, however much they insist upon it elsewhere. The consistent pattern I have noticed is the rejection of the Priesthood, the Hierarchy; in fact, the Catholic Church. This is not as inevitable as some might believe; I have spoken to some Eastern Europeans, raised in generations of communist Atheism, who have decided on joining the Catholic church as a result of reading the Bible (including one who was first a Baptist, then on reading the Bible became a Catholic.) These people had no pre-conceived ideas, no ingrained prejudices.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the Sola Scriptura edifice is far more a rejection of the Catholic church than an adherence to the text of Scripture.
Now let us all admit that those of us raised in one definite denomination have been at least exposed to certain preconceived ideas from childhood upwards. I myself had to shed a few in the 1960s.
.
Let us, however, suppose that the claims of the Sola Scriptura adherents are true: that there was no hierarchical priesthood, no Sacraments as the Catholic church understands them; no Catholic church: and that the entire Christian Faith was contained in the written word of Scripture. Let us explore the implications and consequences of this premiss.
=
=
[1] In the first place, every copy of the Bible would have to contain, as part of the actual text, a list of the Canonical books.
[2] The text of the Bible would have had to contain a declaration that this compilation contained 'The Faith, the whole Faith, and Nothing but the Faith': again as part of the guaranteed text.
[3] The original copies of each book would have been guarded as the most precious relic in the world. The original copy of each would be signed by the Author, preferably Christ Himself (who could certainly read and therefore write).
[4] Each scribe would have been most meticulous in preserving his credentials, as guarantee of the fidelity of transmission. To show what was done, consider this passage in the earliest copy we have of the account of the Martyrdom of S. Polycarp:
"These things were transcribed by Caius from the copy of Irenæus – who was a disciple of Polycarp. Caius had himself been intimate with Irenæus. And I Socrates transcribed them at Corinth from the copy of Caius. Grace be with you all.
And I again, Pionius, wrote them from the previously written copy, having carefully searched into them... I have collected these things, when they had almost faded away through the lapse of time, that the Lord Jesus Christ may also gather me along with His elect into His heavenly kingdom, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
[5] We would be able to read Christ, in His teaching, saying something like, "Behold, I bequeath to ye a Book. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all Nations, teaching them to read every Word of My Book".
[6] In the Fourth Century, when life in Rome was becoming far too difficult, there was a steady hemorrhage of the ablest folk. Landowners of large estates – villas – retired to them, and never returned to Rome. The very word 'villa' came to mean a self-contained community - it is the equivalent of the English word 'town' in French and other languages. In recorded history, the Roman Emperors deserted the growing chaos of Rome for Ravenna, far to the north, and the only public figure with the tenacity to stay was the Pope, who became de facto ruler of the city. Twice he mitigated or turned back a barbarian invasion.
But in our Alternative World of Sola Scriptura, there was no Pope to intercede – and possibly intimidate – Alaric the Visigoth and Atilla the Hun. The city without question would have been left as a smouldering ruin, with all the usual atrocities that accompanied the sacking of a city. By the late fifth century, Rome would have been a pile of ancient rubble and a fading memory.
[7] Meanwhile, what of the Christians? Even with the existence of a central authority – as proved by the extant writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Papias, and others – there were at least fifty documents, of which we have anything from major excerpts to the bare names – claiming to be true Scripture that were rejected. So the scattered, independent groups of Christians would have had to decide which were the true Scriptures, and just as important, what to do about the others. Human nature being what it is, it would have taken no time at all before documents claiming to be genuine, with forged signatures of an Apostle of Christ Himself, would have been in circulation.
[8] In the absence of a central ruling authority, the fate of the Christians would have been the same as that of Mohammedanism. There would have been a divergence of groups, all claiming to have the whole truth. Probably three, or more likely two, groups would have held by far the majority of adherents, but there would have been splinters of splinters down to groups of only a dozen or less. If any reconciliation were even attempted, it would have to be on the basis of the written word of Scripture. But there would have been no way to authenticate the competing versions, once the first generation had passed away.
[9] Even if, by some miracle, (and it would have to be a direct miracle) an agreed compendium of Scripture were settled, still there would have been disputes. To give an example of what actually does happen: In the Koran, there is the statement, "You shall not drink one drop of wine". Pretty clear, eh? But there is an actual sect that makes a religious ritual of pouring a container of wine, spilling one drop, and drinking the rest.
[10] In the authentic scriptures, coming from Christ, there would have to be far more details of correct practice of daily life. Compare the maxims in the Old Testament, which occupy page after page. There would need to be a New Testament Version of Leviticus. This is proved by the diversity of liturgy and practice among present-day Protestants.
(i) Baptism
Baptists and Pentecostals do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation;
Lutherans and Methodists believe it is essential for salvation and is efficacious in making one an adopted child of God and for the remission of original sins.
.
Baptists and Pentecostals believe in what is called "believer baptism"
Lutherans and Methodists believe they are outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace.
.
Baptists and Pentecostals baptize only believers of age.
Lutherans and Methodists practise Infant Baptism.
.
Some believe in baptism by sprinkling, others by total immersion only.
(ii) The Ministry
Certain Protestant groups believe in an ordained class of bishops: others believe that all the Faithful are, in a real sense, bishops.
(iii) some Protestants believe that Mary may rightly be called the Mother of God; others deny this.
Therefore, without becoming tedious, it is clear that these and many other issues would need to be covered by explicit statements in Scripture. For example: "Baptism may be performed from the birth of an infant, and indeed as soon as possible thereafter, because it cleanses the soul from Original sin and drives out the devil" Or, of course, "Baptism may be performed from the age of seven [or twelve] when the candidate is capable of making the choice whether or not to join the community". And, "Baptism may be performed by sprinkling or by total immersion" or "Baptism is performed only by total immersion".
[11] As the years began to wear on, the sacred books would begin to wear out, and the need would arise to insure their perpetuation. The original copies would need to be stored in a safe place. this means that they would either be secreted in the remotest possible location, or else protected by an armed guard – or both. this would mean that somebody would have to make a decision where these priceless relics would go, and somebody would need to train and pay the guards.
[12] The Roman Order would almost certainly have disappeared much more quickly and thoroughly in this alternative world, and so somebody would have to organise schools to teach the alphabet, and the art of book binding.
[13] somebody would have to organise and supervise the copying of the books, and guarantee their fidelity to the original text (which might be lying in a secure location two years' journey from the Scriptorium)
[14] Judging by the existent world, in every generation there would be mavericks. They would either be allowed to stay and spread their subversive ideas, or some tribunal would have to be instituted to examine their case and, if necessary, to expel them from the community. In the latter case, they would most likely found their own dissident community.
==
Have I made the point? These sola Scriptura Christians would either find themselves fissioning forever into more and more dissident groups, with no workable mechanism to bring them together, or they would find themselves re-inventing a replica of the Catholic church.
Why?
Who has not heard ridicule heaped on Commitees? Yet anybody who has actually tried to make any organisation work – from a Sports Club to a University Faculty – discovers by experience that there is a Way to Get Things Done. And the structure of the Catholic church is nothing less than the structure that is able to preserve the Faith through every Age until the End of Time.