The concept of Sola Scriptura was a cornerstone of the Protestant Reformation and continues to be a pillar of theology for our separated brethren. Though, as is the nature of Protestantism, there is no single defined doctrine of Sola Scriptura, all interpretations to some degree claim that the Sacred Scriptures are the sole rule of faith for the Christian. To some degree, all adherents of Sola Scriptura reject Sacred Tradition, and all reject any kind of infallible teaching authority, which the Catholic Church calls “Magisterium”. With regards to Scripture, there are some serious problems with Sola Scriptura, not only in what it explicitly affirms, but also in what it implicitly rejects. In short, for Sola Scriptura to be true, not only must we be able to find affirmation of the authority of Scripture, but we must also find a clear rejection of Tradition and magisterial authority. If any of these elements are missing, then we have no choice but to completely reject Sola Scriptura.
Now before i continue: I love the Scriptures. I really, really do. The Holy Bible is God speaking to men through human authors. Let that soak in for a minute. The Bible is a really amazing thing, and Catholics hold the Written Word of God in a very high regard. My intent here is not to minimize the Scripture, but to understand how it fits into the whole of Divine Revelation.
I think it is best to look at some passages of Scripture which are used to defend Sola Scriptura, and in doing so, propose some alternate interpretations for those passages. This is not an attempt at a full exegesis, but merely proposing alternative possibilities for interpretation. The first selection I want to look at is in the fourth chapter of Hebrews:
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:12-13)
Here the term “word of God” is taken to mean the Bible. Given that the Bible is the written word of God, that seems reasonable. In fact we can grow in discernment by immersing ourselves in the Bible, so this looks like a good interpretation–except for one thing. It is something that would go unnoticed if we only looked at verse twelve, without continuing to verse thirteen. There is a peculiarity with pronouns. This passage is clearly in its entirety about the “word of God”, which is assigned the pronoun “him”. Him? The Scriptures are a “him”? Shouldn’t that say “it”? That small three letter word actually assigns the the “word of God” to be a person, and that person would be “the Word made flesh” (see John 1:4). Also if you consider that vv. 14-16 jump to talking about Jesus as High Priest, it becomes clear that the passage is primarily about the God-man Jesus Christ, rather than the written word of God. This interpretation is also consistent with other passages of Scripture in that the phrase “word of God” usually is referring to a message given to a prophet, or a titular reference to Christ.
This passage is not the only one that seems to support Sola Scriptura. Another particularly strong passage is 2 Timothy 3:14-16:
But as for you, continue what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing form whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
Usually, the last verse of the passage is the only one quoted (All scripture…). When you look at the immediate context, it would seem that St. Paul is instructing St. Timothy specifically about what we call the Old Testament. After all, this epistle was written in the early 60’s, at a time when the other epistles were being written, and well before the Gospel of John. St. Paul really can’t assume his protege was “well-acquainted” with works that had not yet been written. More importantly, there is nothing in this passage that implies exclusivity. I am not denying that Scripture is useful for these things, but I do not believe that Scripture is the only thing that can be used for such purposes.
We are seeing that the explicit declaration that Scripture and only Scripture is to be used for doctrine and theology.This can be rectified if a condemnation of teaching authority of the Church and sacred tradition. A declaration of exclusivity would be redundant if the other things that Catholics look to would be condemned. Let us start with the teaching authority, or Magisterium, of the Church. In Scripture, what kind of authority does the Church have? In Matthew, we see that the Church has the authority to “bind and loose”. For moderns that is kind of a strange phrase. It is only used twice in Scripture, both in the Gospel of Matthew:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (16:18-19)
and
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. (18:15-18)
What is important here is that it is the Church who has the final say on discipline. This second passage essentially provides the outline for excommunication, which has been expanded and developed over the last 2000 years. The binding and loosing, in the mind of the ancient near-east culture form which these texts arise, is simply put the authority to declare what is right and wrong. There is further evidence of this authority in the Pauline Epistles, specifically 1 Timothy:
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed you may know how one is to be have in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15)
This passage quite explicitly explains the great authority–and grave responsibility–of the Church. The Church upholds (the pillar) and defends (the bulwark) the truth. Hence it is the Church which is the final arbiter of truth, and we are not constrained to the translation of a translation of an ancient document. Previous points have shown how the same passage can have multiple interpretations. This is why we must see the Magisterium not as a limitation, but as a security that we do not fall into heresy.
Lastly, let us look at Tradition. Rather than refute a held interpretation, that I find to be erroneous, instead we will draw our attention to a passage that presents Tradition in a positive light. That is, though in some cases some traditions may be condemned, there is not a blanket condemnation on all tradition:
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren and beloved by the Lord. because God chose you from the beginning to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2: 13-15)
There are other passages that praise keeping tradition, but for our purposes, one will suffice. St. Paul here is actually commanding the Thessalonians hold fast to oral tradition. That is, in fact, the opposite of condemning tradition. This does mean that tradition is also a source form which we can draw faith and practice.
In conclusion, Sola Scriptura does not have anything in Scripture to support it. There is no claim of exclusivity. The ruling authority is found in the Church. Tradition is upheld as a good in its proper context. All of these arguments come directly from Scripture, so outside of any Church document, any canon from an Ecumenical Council, any papal decree, the Sacred Scriptures are to be taken together with Sacred Tradition under the guidance of the teaching authority of the Church. All of these together comprise Divine Revelation, and only by taking them all together can we even begin to approach the Truth that God has prepared for us. God bless you always.
Catholic Ramblings 