A Christian needs to pay careful attention when the Roman Catholic Church challenges sola Scriptura. When they are challenging the Bible alone as the only Word of God, we as Christians need to ask them, “What other sources do you have that are equal in weight of authority to the Bible?” If they say that there is a source outside the Bible that is equal in weight to the Bible, then we as Christians should let the Roman Catholic present his or her case. At the same time, we need to ask them, “Are there other words of God outside of Scripture that is inspired by God?”
The topic of Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) as being the only source of authority, is a big deal to the Catholic Church. When the belief of sola Scriptura is presented to them, there is a question that often arises, “Does the Bible teach sola Scriptura?” That is a good question because that leads into a discussion of the implicit versus explicit method. According to New Oxford Dictionary, the word implicit means that something is implied but not expressed clearly; and explicit means something is stated clearly. When it comes to sola Scriptura, the Christian should consider the dichotomy surrounding the implicit and explicit method.
When articulating sola Scriptura, one must consider using logic and necessary deduction. Logic and necessary deduction should be considered because sola Scriptura is not explicitly taught in Scripture. For example, there is not one Scripture in the Bible that will use the expression, “the Bible alone is the Word of God.” But just because the Bible does not explicitly use the expression, “the Bible alone is the is the Word of God,” does not mean that sola Scriptura is not a fact in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is taught, but it is demonstrated implicitly. So the question that arises is this, “Does implicit evidence teach sola Scriptura?” The answer to that is yes! Just like how the Trinity is proven implicitly by overwhelming evidence, sola Scriptura is proven implicitly too with overwhelming evidence.
When it comes to sola Scriptura, there are two different viewpoints from the Catholic Church. For example, the traditional viewpoint believes that the pope and bishops have power over the body of beliefs and practices from Jesus Christ.[1] People are called to obey the written Word of God and also the unwritten word of God—tradition (with a capital T).[2] In other words, this viewpoint believes that God passed down the written and unwritten word of God to the Roman Catholic Church. According to the nontraditional viewpoint, the Roman Catholic Church believes that divine revelation is taught within the pages of Scripture and is also taught within tradition.[3] This viewpoint believes that tradition is taught implicitly in Scripture.[4] This means that their teachings such as the immaculate conception of Mary, papal infallibility are taught implicitly.[5] At the end of the day, whatever viewpoint a Roman Catholic adheres to, it is transparent that the Roman Catholic Church rejects sola Scriptura. This is evidential because their presupposition is rooted in sola ecclesia.
When discussing sola Scriptura, point out to the Catholic person that the Roman Catholic Church admits that the Bible is one source that God sees as inspired. Tell them that according to their dogmatic constitution on divine revelation that was solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965, the DV 24, NCC #135, says, “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God.”[6] This is an important quote to help stir them to search the Scriptures. But since DV 24, NCC #135, believes the Bible is the written Word of God, they will still need to dig through Scripture in order to have an cogent and logical conversation.
When Roman Catholics makes the claim that the Bible is not the only source of authority, the burden of proof falls on their shoulders because they are the ones that will need to show us how their tradition, Scripture, and the magisterium cannot stand without another. They will need to show us if there are others sources that can give people “certainty,” besides the Bible. As Christians, we believe the Word of God is the only source of revelation that has absolute certainty.
[1] Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics (Eugene, Or.: Harvest House, 2000), 48.
[2] Ibid, 48.
[3] Ibid, 48.
[4] Ibid, 48.
[5] Ibid, 48.
[6] Pope Paul VI, “Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum,” Vatican,
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
(accessed December 1, 2011).
Before one can apply sola scriptura which books belonging to Scripture must be determined first. Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants have different number of books (those of Old Testament) in their Scripture. You may not be aware that the number of books in your Bible (66 books) is based on presumption (or on your church councils). There is no single verse in the entire Scripture that declares number (and names) of inspired books. The irony is you (or your church councils like Synod of Dort) assume first that the Bible has only 66 books and then declare those prechosen books as the only and final authority. This implies that you (or your church councils) have no authority to make presumption that only 66 books of your Bible are inspired – a self contradicting circular argument!
Did you read the post?
I feel that your argument is somewhat of a strawman. May I ask you if you are aware of the Protestant understanding of the canon?
To be brief to the point, I think discussion of canonicity must not be divorced from Scripture’s own claim of the nature of Scripture, which is important for a Protestant position concerning canonicity in light of Sola Scriptura. Any interaction with a vaccum away from such discussion would seem strange if it’s going to be part of your internal self-defeater against Sola Scriptura.
You call it strawman because you cannot defend your man-made sola scriptura? You wrote that canonicity must not be divorced from Scripture’s own claim of the nature of Scripture – perhaps you would refer to 2 Tim 3:16. Does that verse say there are only 66 books of the Scripture? The irony, which you keep on denying, is sola scriptura itself is not scriptural
Vivator,
1.) “You call it strawman because you cannot defend your man-made sola scriptura?”
Response: I called it a straw man because it misrepresent the doctrine of canonicity of Protestants. Again, that’s why I asked the question of whether or not you are aware of the Protestant’s understanding of the canon, and I am puzzle by your lack of a substantial response towards that question.
2.) “You wrote that canonicity must not be divorced from Scripture’s own claim of the nature of Scripture – perhaps you would refer to 2 Tim 3:16.”
Response: Do you think 2 Timothy 3:16 is the only verse that contributes doctrines that is important in a Protestant’s formulation of the criteria of canonicity of Scripture?
3.) “Does that verse say there are only 66 books of the Scripture? The irony, which you keep on denying, is sola scriptura itself is not scriptural”
Response: Here is what I mean by the spirit of straw man that you have…where did I “keep on denying” your thesis that “Sola Scriptural itself is not scriptural”? Please quote me…I have not been constantly denying anything…I’ve asked a question and note an observation concerning the topic you brought up about canonicity, and specifically of how you believe canonicity is a defeater against Sola Scriptura. My question is a response to your comment, and I’ve not even commented on Sola Scriptura per se so how can I constantly deny something about Sola Scriptura? Don’t accuse me of something I’ve not committed, I’ve only asked a question and noted an observation, the substance of which has not yet been dealt with on your part.
Hello Vivator,
As SLIIMJIM said, I believe your arguments are somewhat of a straw man. Also I am curious to know, what is your understanding of canonicity? What determines canonicity? Your response would be appreciated.
Thank you for your interaction in this topic, SLIMJIM.
Vivator,
Thank you for your response. You bring about straw man arguments by saying, “the irony, which you keep on denying, is sola scriptura itself is not scriptural.”
Let me clarify my point to you. I believe that the doctrine of sola Scriptura as expressed in this vernacular, “the Bible alone is the only Word of God and the only authority” is buttressed in Scripture. The clause that “the Bible alone is the only Word of God and the only authority” may not be expressed explicitly, but there is overwhelming evidence that this doctrine is buttressed in Scripture implicitly.
But before I answer your question of how sola Scriptura is supported, let me first articulate what you need to know in order for you not to bring about straw man arguments.
When it comes to doctrines of the Bible such as the doctrine of sola Scriptura, not each and every doctrine taught in Scripture is taught explicitly by book, chapter and verse. Many doctrines for example are taught by way of logical and necessary deduction. For instance take look at the word “Trinity.” The word Trinity is not used in the Bible. But few theologians would argue that the Trinity is not more implicitly taught than explicitly. There is overwhelming evidence to prove this. Let me continue, the the same may be said regarding the doctrine concerning the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to the believer for justification. This doctrine of the righteousness of Christ that brings about justification for believers surfaces in light of the overwhelming implicit evidence. The same is true for sola Scriptura. The word “sola Scriptura” does not appear in Scripture nor the clause, “the Bible alone is the only Word of God and the only source of authority,” but it surfaces in light of the overwhelming evidence.
I would like to articulate in more details how sola Scriptura is supported in Scripture in the near future, but I am still curious to know, what is your perception of the Protestant understanding of the canon? Could you please answer this question?
Vivator,
We would appreciate it if you would answer our questions. You have misrepresented the Protestant understanding of canonicity. That is why you commit straw man arguments.
[...] Sola Scriptura Versus Sola Ecclesia: Introduction [...]
[...] Sola Scriptura Versus Sola Ecclesia: Introduction [...]