#scripture alone

Scripture Alone | sola scriptura

That Scripture alone (the 39 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT) is the sole rule and standard for faith and practice before God. (Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44; 2 Tim. 3:15-16; John 5:46-47)

Christ Alone | solus Christus

That Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man. (Isa. 42:1; 1 Peter 1:19-20; Acts 3:22; Heb. 5:5-6; Psa. 2:6; Luke 1:33; Eph. 1:22-23; Heb. 1:2; Acts 17:31; Isa. 53:10; John 17:6; Rom. 8:30)

Grace Alone | sola gratia

That by God’s good pleasure alone, some men are saved to the praise of Christ’s glorious grace; others are left in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice. (1 Tim. 5:21; Matt. 25:34; Eph. 1:5-6; Rom. 9:22-23; Jude 1:4)

Faith Alone | sola fide

That grace of faith where people are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily worked by the ministry of the preached Word. (2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 2:8; Rom. 10:14, 17; Luke 17:5; 1 Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32)

Glory of God Alone | soli Deo gloria

Sola Fide

Sola Christus

Sola Scriptura

The Truth About Biblical Authority

Even if someone does not accept the inspiration of Scripture, he can know through the use of reason alone that the New Testament contains accurate historical information about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. And one piece of history he will find there is that Jesus established a “Church” that would have the authority to speak for him whenever there was a matter of dispute among the people of God. That Church—also a matter of historical fact—was and is the Catholic Church.

Perhaps the plainest example of Our Lord’s teaching on the establishment of an authoritative and infallible authority on earth, namely, the Church, can be found in Matthew 18:15-18. Here, in part of the Gospel reading we heard this past Sunday, Jesus gives definitive instruction as to how matters of dispute would be settled among the people of God for all time:

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  

Jesus guarantees that the Church’s definitive decisions would be backed up by the authority of heaven itself. So radical is this authority that he would also say of his Church, “If they receive you they receive me; if they reject you, they reject me” (Matt. 10:40; Cf. Luke 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 3:10; 4:11-15, etc.). This does not mean just some kind of authority, but an infallible authority, i.e. the authority of Christ himself.

The blessings of this infallible Church are manifold. But one very important reason for its establishment concerns the nature of faith itself. Without an infallible spokesman for Christ, the follower of Christ cannot have faith in the sense that God wills for him, because without that infallible spokesman he is forced to trust in some man’s private and fallible interpretation of the word of God rather than the word of God itself. Whether he places his faith in his own interpretation or in another fallible person’s really doesn’t matter. He is trusting in a fallible source, rather than in that of God’s spokesman who speaks infallibly.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, St. Paul explains this principle succinctly:

And we thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.

Notice that Paul did not say he was giving the Thessalonians (and us) his fallible opinion of what he thought Jesus said. He gave them the word of God. Paul—and the Catholic Church, I should add—never asks the faithful to place what the Church in its tradition calls “divine faith” in anything other than the infallible teachings of God’s authority on earth, whether that be Paul himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, or the infallible teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Church (cf. CCC 2089). To place “divine faith” in anything else would be to accept “as doctrines the precepts of men.” Jesus did not have nice things to say about that! (See Mark 7:6-8.)

The Protestant idea that Jesus did not give us an infallible Church—that, instead, we are to get our Bibles out and argue verses and then start our own churches if we cannot agree—as has been the practice of Protestantism for 500 years with no end in sign, or indeed possible. It is also completely alien to the New Testament, which condemns the practice of private interpretation of Scripture:

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

Our Protestant friends will claim that this text does not condemn private interpretation at all. It is, they will say, only speaking of the inspiration and authority of Scripture— that the text of Scripture itself is not a matter of “private interpretation.” It has nothing to do with the man interpreting Scripture.

But this is manifestly false. The next verse (2 Peter 2:1) informs us that Peter was concerned with more than just the actual text of Scripture. He warned of “false teachers” who would teach “heresies,” not just false teachers who would write apocryphal works and claim them to be Scripture:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies.

In 2:10 he describes these false teachers as “despising authority,” and then, in 3:16, he tells us they “twist the scriptures to their own destruction.” The context of Peter’s letter leaves no room to doubt that our first pope was condemning the private interpretation of Scripture, the foundation of the Protestant movement.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us, in paragraph 89, that the dogmas of the Faith are crucial for our spiritual lives, and our spiritual lives must be upright so that we will be open to receive the dogmas:

There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.

And the Catechism also tells us—in paragraph 2051—just how far the infallible teaching authority of the Church extends:

The infallibility of the Magisterium … extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

Why does this great gift extend to all of these matters absolutely crucial for our salvation? Paul  says it beautifully and succinctly in Ephesians 4:14: “so that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”

Why I’m Catholic: Sola Scriptura Isn’t Logical, Part II

When we left off on Sola Scriptura before, I was relating the substance of conversations I had with Jimmy Akin while I was still a Protestant minister. In fact, Jimmy was just about to ask the question that eventually sent me over the edge. It went like this:

Jimmy: Ken, it is a simple fact that the list of books to be included in the canon of Scripture—the list you still have in your New Testament—was decided at councils of the Catholic Church, primarily Hippo in 393 A.D. and Carthage in 397 and 419 A.D. This is where you received the 27 books you have in your New Testament. Here’s my question for you: Did the Holy Spirit lead the Church to an infallible decision with respect to those New Testament books, yes or no?

I could see immediately that this was a loaded question. It reminded me of the subtlety of the Pharisees when they asked Jesus, "John's baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven or from men?"

I needed time to think.

Looking back I can see that from the moment I began to grapple with this question, at some level I knew I was in trouble. It was like a bell tolling the end of my existence as a Bible-only Christian. As a Protestant, I did not believe that the Holy Spirit led the Church to infallible decisions—even in essential matters of faith and practice. Rather, I believed as Luther believed: the decisions of popes and councils are inherently fallible, no matter what the topic or level of importance to Christian theology.

Thinking again about Jimmy’s question, I knew that if I answered, “No, the decisions of those councils were inherently fallible,“ that sly Jimmy Akin would respond, “So then, you don't know for sure that you’ve got the right books in your New Testament, do you? Why don’t you study the issue and make your own decision the same way you do with respect to the teaching of the New Testament?” On the other hand, if I answered, “Yes, the Holy Spirit led those councils to a decision I can trust as true and binding,” then Jimmy would respond, “Welcome to the Catholic Church, Ken!”

So instead I tried to defuse his argument.

Ken: Jimmy, those councils didn't decide the canon of inspired Scripture. God created the canon when he inspired the apostles to write down what He wanted us to know. Those councils merely recognized what God had done! Jimmy: But, of course! I'm not saying—and the Catholic Church has never said—that the Church somehow created the canon by its authoritative decree. What the councils did was recognize the canon and make formal declaration of which books should be received as belonging to it. And the question I'm asking is: do you believe the Holy Spirit led those councils to an infallibly correct “recognition” of the canon? Yes or no? Beginning to feel hemmed in, I tried to circumvent the question. Ken: Well, it's not like it was a difficult decision! Essentially, everyone knew which books were inspired and canonical! Jimmy: Ken, that’s simply not true. Even Protestant New Testament scholars like Bruce Metzger admit that about 25% of the New Testament was disputed to some degree in the early centuries of the Church. Read Eusebius. As late as 330 A.D. he's describing the New Testament as containing only one epistle of John and one of Peter. He's referring to James, 2 Peter and Jude as “disputed writings.” He's describing the Apocalypse of John as a book accepted by some but "rejected" by others. It’s not true that “everyone knew!” Ken: Well, I suppose I do believe the Holy Spirit led the Church to an infallible decision with regard to the canon. After all, the alternative would be skepticism! How would we know from which books to take our teaching and build our theology? Yes, since Scripture is our very foundation, I don’t believe God would allow the Church to err at this point.

Jimmy: So you believe the Holy Spirit led those councils to an infallible decision on the issue of the canon?

Ken: Yes. God must have.

Jimmy: Well, now you've got me scratching my head. Are you aware that the extent of the Old Testament canon was also decided at those very same councils, and it included the seven books we Catholics accept as inspired and you Protestants reject? Ken: I didn't know that. Jimmy: And there's more. Are you aware that those same councils also formally affirmed the decisions of the Council of Constantinople held 20 years earlier, at which the Church recognized the authority of the Bishop of Rome? Ken: Well, the councils were wrong about those things. Jimmy: So your saying the Holy Spirit led those councils to an infallible decision on the New Testament, but not on the Old Testament, and not when considering the authority of the Bishop of Rome?

Ken: I suppose that’s what I’m saying. Yes.

Jimmy: Forgive me, but doesn’t it seem a bit convenient that when you disagree with the councils, the Holy Spirit wasn’t leading them, but when you agree with the councils, not only was the Holy Spirit leading them, but infallibly so? Ken: Look, let's continue this later. I don't feel so good.

As I’ve said, my Protestant worldview began to unravel the moment I tired to solve this problem of the canon.

In order to have an authoritative New Testament, I had implicitly accepted the authority of the Catholic Church—an authority I then turned around and rejected on the authority of the New Testament. In other words, in order to take the Bible as my "infallible rule," I had to believe the Holy Spirit had led the Church "infallibly" when it assembled the Bible at those ecumenical councils. But then, in order to escape becoming Catholic, I had to believe the Holy Spirit had led the Church infallibly only when it assembled that Bible. And even then, only the New Testament! On nearly everything else—as far as I was concerned—the Church was wrong: was wrong about the canon of the Old Testament, wrong about the authority of the Bishop of Rome, wrong about baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist—all teachings universally accepted at the time those councils were which decided the New Testament.