Yes, we are continuing this dialogue. It has been a valuable dialogue and I wish to further elaborate where my thoughts are at as of 9:17 Sunday evening.
I am not a Catholic. I am not going to cross the Tiber and I don’t even have a raft for casual floating or a fishing license were I tempted. The point of my last blog (which followed Dan’s post on the same subject) has been for Protestants (and Catholics) to consider how close we really are when it comes to the historic Christian faith. As well, my thoughts are that we consider the possibility that both sides have been talking past each for quite some time. I also made the suggestion that both sides are changing, softening in their language, compromising, and becoming more tolerant of each other.
I want to focus the attention of this blog to the issue of the issue of authority, briefly visiting the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura and the Catholic alternatives. Sola Scriptura is the view held by Protestants with this short definition:
The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian
Protestants often misunderstand the intent of the Reformers believing that sola Scriptura is defined this way:
The Scriptures are the only authority for the Christian
Notice the difference? In the first, there are other sources of authority recognized (parents, husbands, the government, creation or natural revelation, and, yes, church authorities [1 Pet. 2:13-15; Heb. 13:17; Eph. 5:22]). In the second, the common slogan sums it up well, “If it’s not in the Bible, I don’t believe it.”
It must be stated emphatically that historic Protestantism does not recognize the second as a legitimate definition of what the Reformers meant by sola Scriptura. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli would all recognize other authorities for the Christian. They would simply say that all other authorities can fail since they are not inspired. But this does not mean in any way that these other authorities lose their status because of the possibility of failure.
Therefore, let us set aside the aberrant view of sola Scriptura and go with this one:
The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.
For the Catholic, on the other hand, the options are different. Catholicism holds to the view that both Tradition and Scripture are infallible authorities for the Christian. This is called the “dual source theory.” Most briefly, the dual source theory believes that Christ gave one deposit of faith (collection of teachings) and this deposit took two forms: 1) written Scripture, 2) unwritten Tradition. With this, Protestants most certainly can and must agree. Not everything that Christ did or said was written down (John 21:25). Where we traditionally part ways is when Catholics argue that this unwritten Tradition is infallible, being perfectly preserved and accessible to the Church. We would also part ways when Catholics would argue that the Magisterial authority of the Church (the collection of bishops in direct apostolic succession to the apostles with the succession of Peter being assumed by the bishop of Rome) has the authority to interpret both infallibly. Again, historic Protestantism holds to apostolic succession, just not infallible apostolic succession. In other words, the Church can get it wrong.
Catholics have two options when it comes to this issue. First, they can say that Tradition and Scripture each have essential elements that are needed for salvation. Therefore, in order to have a sufficient knowledge base for salvation to be possible, one must have the information from both Scripture and Tradition, neither of which will do alone. The second option is called the “material sufficiency” view. This option says that all that is necessary for salvation is present within the Scriptures by themselves. In other words, the Scriptures by themselves are sufficient to bring about salvation without the addition of the unwritten tradition. The “material sufficiency” view is very close to the historic Protestant view of sola Scriptura.
In this case, as we have it now, Catholics can hold to this option:
Scripture and Tradition are both needed to provide essential information concerning salvation
Or the material sufficiency option:
Scripture by itself contains sufficient information to bring about salvationÂ
This last one is, again, very close to the second option of sola Scriptura described above.Â
Another option for Catholics with regards to this issue that needs to be recognized has to do with whether or not there is primacy of Scripture over tradition or vice versa. Some Catholics hold to a view called prima Scriptura. Prima Scriptura is the view that while there are two sources of the one deposit, Scripture holds primacy. In other words, Scripture has the final say and is the first among equals.
Many prominent Catholic scholars and theologians would describe their view this way. Catholic apologist Scott Hahn being one of them. The same can be said of Yves Congar. Some have even interpreted this statement of Pope John Paul II in his address to academics in 1986 to be in support of prima Scriptura: “Theology must take its point of departure from a continual and updated return to the Scriptures read in the Church.”
Therefore, there are many Catholics whose view of authority can be said this way:
The Scriptures are the final source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.
Lets compare this to the historic Protestant understanding described above:
The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.
The only difference here is that Catholics believe that their is another infallible source that contributes to the authority for the Christian, while Protestants affirm that there is another source that contributes, but this source is not infallible. If this is the case, it becomes very difficult to see where Protestants and Catholics part ways on small issues and in the language used to articulate the respective positions.
If this is the case, then Protestant and Catholics are much more alike in their view of authority than most realize.
Can Catholics affirm sola Scriptura? No. But they can affirm prima Sciptura with material sufficiency. Does this mean that if a Catholic does not affirm prima Scriptura with material sufficiency that I think they are bound for the flames? No. Even these affirm the authority and inspiration of Scripture.
I am still learning here so I look forward to your comments.
28 replies to "Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?"
Michael,
I appreciate your continued articulation in the realm of Bibliology. This is something I have been trying to brush up on and has been seriously lacking in my Evangelical study. Between you and M. James Sawyer fascinating article in Bible.com I have had a chance to examine these issues of “authority†more closely.
One thing I want to throw out there. Wouldn’t some (or most) Anglicans consider themselves Prima Scriptura? I think that is worth throwing out there in this context. It would be interesting to hear what others have to say. (I’m also curious what Rhome has to say about all of this, where is he???). Look forward to the “irenic†discussion.
God Bless,
-Ted.
I think you are right about Anglicans. It could also be the case with Eastern Orthodox (although there are some nuances there).
James Sawyer is the man for this stuff. Maybe he will chime in sometime.
Rhome is in Canada. Hopefully he will join as well.
Good to see you are persevering in this!
Thanks Michael. I’m trying to keep up. It isn’t easy sometimes. The polemics can get heavy at times.
I would love to hear what Mr. Sawyer has to say on this specifically. I loved this article:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=689 It helped me when dealing with some the authority issues raised by RCs.
I’m glad he is getting some time off to go back home. I love what both of you bring to this ministry.
-Ted.
But say, for the sake of argument the pope is not the “vicar in the flesh” and
although claims to be infallible he is not.
Would he not and all those who affirm what he teaches be under the curse
of Galatians 1?
So if a Catholic cannot affirm sola scriptura but adds to it papal authority (assuming the
pope is not who he says he is) how can they not be under the anathema?
Having been raised as a Catholic, I think I can come down to “The Scriptures are the final source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.”
There are millions of people interpreting the scriptures and I have no problem with consulting people who have studied and prayed extensively to properly understand what is meant by some of the “harder” scriptures. Often, I do find that the leaders of the Catholic Church get it “right” in my opinion. But it’s hard for me to say they ALWAYS get it right. So I don’t know if I can say that the Catholic Church is the only other authority. I try to look at the whole picture and I consider the life of the person who I am reading (if I KNOW about their life) and I consider their education and I attempt to see if the Holy Spirit within me is “assenting” to what I am reading. So, in the end, I guess someone could say that I am making MYSELF the authority! Gee, that would not be good, would it. The Holy Spirit is really the authority. If the Catholic Church were to come out with a teaching that said, “It is fine to sacrifice your first-born as an honor to God” then I would have to disagree. It would not MATTER that they are the Catholic Church. What they are teaching would be wrong. How do I know? How do you know? You and I know because there is something inside us saying, “This is wrong.” I have to believe that it is the Holy Spirit guiding us in this respect. Though, even people who don’t have or know about the Holy Spirit would say that the teaching is wrong. Humans ARE fallible. That is all there is to it. Whether we want to agree or not, we decide on a case by case basis whether we agree with a person, a position, a church. People who are uncertain about their thoughts and beliefs may decide for a while that they are going to believe everything being taught by a certain minister or a church. But there comes a time when something happens that they feel in themselves is not right. They may go on saying they believe all, but at the center of themselves, there is a bit that says “no.”
Joanie D.
First of all, hats off to you Michael and to Rhome for the quality of education you put forth in The Theology Program. Had I not been through the majority of The Theology Program I would be almost totally lost in these discussions. As it is I am over my head, but loving every minute of the discussions of these issues.
If you take a limited view of sola Scriptura, meaning scripture alone is enough, then whose interpretation of that scripture should be accorded priority? If it is my personal interpretation then all doctrine is at risk for personal interpretation as well.
The Theology Program was extremely good in pointing out the significant contribution to church history in doctrinal issues and I now accord more credence to historical church authority than I did before The Theology Program.
Keep up the good work with this blog.
How about some dialog on the assurance of salvation contrasted from the reformed and catholic viewpoints?
Bill
FYI: I just read an article where Jimmy Akin affirms prima Sciptura. I hope that he can chime in and give his thoughts on this.
Michael, I am not sure you listen to it already, but Akin is one of the speakers on Catholic Answers Live, a daily Catholic apologetics radio show that also comes out in podcast form. It is very well done and interesting. In iTunes you can go back and check out all the guests for the day and pick out folks like Hahn and Akin.
Thanks Bill. That is encouraging. Also, just to keep this in perspective I just wrote this to a friend who is very upset about evangelicalisms free church mentality:
“I agree. But to be fair, in the end, evangelicals do have the best exegetes in the world and they know how to handle the text. That is why I am still an evangelical. While these traditions have much that we need, we also, from my point of view, have something more important that they need. Hopefully we can learn from each other rather than throwing both babies out with the bathwater. Either way, there is a reason why, even in the middle of this mess, I am an evangelical: exegesis of God’s word.”
Bill, you are great!
Vance, I have listened to it from time to time. Thanks for the reminder.
Hey Michael thanks for the great posts, it’s kind of funny I recently finished listening to the messages on Catholicism from the website and read Professor Saucys paper on the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants and had a couple questions that have been lingering in my mind.
Here is the difficulty that I am having: if “Sola Scriptura is the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christianâ€, who is the final authority of its interpretation? Because to me (as you wrote) Protestants often times use “Sola Scriptura†as a straw man when speaking with Roman Catholics and use it to cover everything they disagree on.
Now I can see why Romans Catholics would come to different conclusions about Scripture than Protestants (because they have to, due their doctrines of the infallibility of the Church, i.e. changing their mind would contradict themselves and thus show that the Church is in fact not infallible) but how is it that so many Protestants using the same systems of interpretation come to different conclusions? Certainly the writers of the Bible had an exact idea/thought they were trying to express (guided by the Holy Spirit) when they were writing, so it seems quite odd that many texts are interpreted so different. Matthew 18:20 is a perfect example of this.
To me this seems to strengthen the Roman Catholics position more than anything else because it represents (at least at face value) a unified body because it reveals that Protestants often are applying their theology in their interpretation of Scripture rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.
But also I would like to know (I’m not sure if you know or not), how Catholics would defend the infallibility of the Church in light of the Crusades and the Inquision, as though that those acts were ordained by God infallible church. Because it seems it would be extremely difficult for them to justify and maintain infallibility especially in light of the Church’s history.
Ok hopefully I was clear enough but in case I wasn’t here are the questions:
1. Who has the “final†authority of Scriptures interpretation? (I’m assuming no one does)
2. How do Catholics justify and maintain the infallibility of the Church in the face of such a bloody history?
Thank you for the wonderful work you do, you are truly a blessing.
-Josh
Just to add to Josh’s thoughts, when we affirm sola Scriptura, we are talking about Scripture that was chosen among the available writings by . . . The Church.
While I think that Ehrman and his ilk make WAY too much of the variety of writings and disagree entirely with their portrayal of the process as political and simply an example of “the winners write the book”, we must acknowledge one point:
If we accept that God guided those particular Church Fathers in the process of the selection of the Canon, then we are accepting a form of AUTHORITY given to them, and that authority IS outside the Scripture itself.
If we believe that God can guide His SCRIPTURE in this way through the Church, then we have already opened to conceptual door to His guiding proper practice and interpretation (ie, theology) as well.
This is merely a devil’s advocate argument, and I believe we must make distinctions along the way, but intellectual honesty requires that look at this evenly.
Note, I should have added a bit to that second to last paragraph to make my point clear:
If we believe that God can guide His SCRIPTURE in this way through the Church, then we have already opened to conceptual door to His guiding proper practice and interpretation (ie, theology) through the Church as well.
Vance, great comments. Even if we do not concede that church that recognized/proclaimed the canon to be infallible, this does not mean that it is an either/or–either they were fallible and canon is wrong or they were infallible and the canon was right. This creates a false dilemma that I don’t think most Protestants are able to think through with integrity of the mind.
Do we have a fallible canon of infallible books? Yes. Does this make us have room for legitimate doubt concerning the canon? Not necessarily.
One of the major reasons I do not subscribe to the Catholic system of infallibility is because I believe that it is largely (in its later developmental stages) a product of the enlightenments need for absolute certainty. Why do we need it before we are held accountable to belief in something? For example, I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. I do not believe this infallibly (because my beliefs are always fallible). But at the same time this does not alleviate me of the authority of the evidence.
With Catholics, the issue that confuses me is the failure (it seems) to realize that fallibility is the starting point for us all. None of us can be infallible in any belief, whether it be an interpretation of Scripture or our belief in the infallible authority of the Church. In other words, if I was a Catholic, my beliefs in the Catholic system are fallible based upon my own fallibility. It is not as if I CANNOT be wrong about this issue. Therefore, we all, Catholic or Protestant, cannot escape this fact that all our beliefs are fallible.
What is the solution? Not to require infallibility, but to require submission to the weight of the evidence. The weight of the evidence with regard to the canon seems very strong. But we must continually examine the evidence precisely because we all are fallible.
I think there is a balance between the “every man for himself” approach to Christianity that we find so often in today’s evangelicalism and the infallible authority of an entity we see among some Catholic thinking. It is the “standing on the shoulders of giants” approach. While I would agree that we all have responsibility for seeking out the Truth, one extremely valid source of evidence is the thinking and writing of theologians over the centuries. While consensus does not guarantee accuracy, that is OK, because I am not sure I have ever found much consensus anyway!
I think God did guide those Church Fathers in their choosing of Scripture, I think He gave them wisdom and discernment. But I also think, upon my independent study, that they also got it right regardless! Those are the works that would meet any reasonable standard for a Canon of authorized texts to pass along the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
Now, would I still accept that collection as whole and holy if my personal reasoning concluded that, say, Revelation should have been excluded (and it was a close call!)? I think so, because I would at that point defer to the scholarship of the centuries that has accepted that decision as correct.
But that is not to say that I would accept such “scholarship” and authority on an issue that my conscious just screamed out against, especially if there were others who had the same “issues”.
That is a great post my friend. I really like the last two paragraphs and they provide balance. As I teach in Introduction to Theology in The Theology Program, we have many sources of truth that interact and will take more priority depending on the situation or subject. In this case, the concensus of the historic church has more to say than Scripture itself.
Just a quick question/comment,
“With Catholics, the issue that confuses me is the failure (it seems) to realize that fallibility is the starting point for us all. None of us can be infallible in any belief, whether it be an interpretation of Scripture or our belief in the infallible authority of the Church. In other words, if I was a Catholic, my beliefs in the Catholic system are fallible based upon my own fallibility. It is not as if I CANNOT be wrong about this issue. Therefore, we all, Catholic or Protestant, cannot escape this fact that all our beliefs are fallible.â€
Would it be reasonable to assume, that the “pull-back†the Catholic system of beliefs uses on its own infallibility has been developed over the centuries as a defense against the constant attempts of heresy (gnostism, etc) against the orthodoxy teachings of Christ, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers? It seems to me this would be a very good reason for their tight binding to the Church doctrines, and it would explain why they have applied a doctrine of infallibility to the Church which was never intended to be placed upon the Church in order to protect the Gospel.
I think you are getting at the core of the issue which is this: If in fact the Church is fallible, then my standing with God really is between Him and me alone, I have no “assurance†from the church that what I am doing is what God wants me to do. Now this I could see would be a horrific thought, especially in the early centuries when very few people knew how to read and the majority of information was spread through word of mouth. Therefore (I think in a Catholic mind set), the Church CANNOT be wrong (i.e. infallible), because if it is in fact wrong then I have no basis for my standing before God.
To clarify I am not saying that Catholics believe that they can enter into heaven just because the Church “says soâ€, but I affirm they believe it is only through Jesus’ atoning death and faith in Him. What I am saying is that (to repeat what you said Michael), in their mind set, if the church is fallible in ANYWAY, they seem to think the next logical step that must be taken is that it is incorrect in ALL ways. And that is quite a scary place to be.
If anyone can I would greatly appreciate if you could point me to an article or a book that explains the Catholic position on how they justify viewing the Church (i.e. Pope,etc) as infallible as Scripture.
Thanks again,
-Josh
Michael,
This is a great series of posts…keep it up!
As far as the infallibility of the Pope goes, that is something that I don’t think that most lay Catholics strongly adhere to. First of all the infallibility on applies to statements made ex cathedra. Second I think most have doubts about some doctrines that come out in encyclical form.
Look at Humanae Vitae and its pronouncements on contraception. They are routinely ignored or ridiculed by many. This is partly wanting one’s own way, but it is also partly that the lay people think Rome got it wrong. (I am not debating whether it is right or not, just using it as a point). In practice I remember growing up understanding Papal infallibility, but not really buying into it in a practical sense.
I see a few groups of Catholics: those who believe in Papal infallibility because they are ardent followers and would not doubt even if it was justified; those who follow Rome on most things, see the wisdom, but recognize the human influence in deciding the doctrines; and those who don’t plan on following the rules anyway.
Brian
Yes Brian, I would agree, most Catholics do not believe Catholic teaching or don’t take it seriously. The same can be said of most Protestants.
The key is that committed Catholics cannot choose to disagree with the church. The issue then becomes How do you interpret such statements? With this, there is some disagreement in Catholicism as to the seriousness of say taking conception or which statements are actually infallible.
Good remarks, thanks.
Josh, I think that “By What Authority” by Mark Shea should give you a good start.
For a papal declaration to be considered ex cathedra, and thereby infallible, the pope must intend to speak to the Church with his full authority as supreme teacher on a matter of faith and morals. The last statement of ex cathedra in this capacity was made over 50 years ago and the one before that was close to 150 years ago. There are many times when the Pope will make statements or declarations but they are not considered ex cathedra. You would have to go back to the 1600s and the 1300s to find a declaration to be considered ex cathedra, and thereby infallible . So the debate here is about infallibilty based on 4 declarations over 700 years. Most Catholics that are referenced here would only be speaking of John Paul II, John Paul I, and Paul VI. Contrary to what’s said here, most Catholics do believe in Catholic teaching and do take it seriously. I also believe they know the difference between doctrine and discipline. For example; a priest cannot marry. There are priest who are married by the way… That is a discipline. Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. That is doctrine.
Josh you said: “I would like to know (I’m not sure if you know or not), how Catholics would defend the infallibility of the Church in light of the Crusades and the Inquision, as though that those acts were ordained by God infallible church.” And you asked “How do Catholics justify and maintain the infallibility of the Church in the face of such a bloody history?”
First before I start with an answer I would just like to remind readers that Protestant history is hardly snow white. In the 100 years war English Protestants and French Catholics slaughtered each other in droves. Puritans in England and North America (not to mention Lutherans in Germany) burned witches.
Many secular scholars are also calling into question the exact number of victims of the Spanish Inquisition. It seems that the number is far, far lower than previously suspected and that death penalties were not handed out in nearly the numbers polemicists say.
So, I believe it is unfair to accuse the Church of having a singularly bloody history when much of European history when both sides of the Christian divide have many things to be ashamed of.
How would I defend magisterial and Church infallibility in light of this history? First I don’t think there is any need to defend this particular doctrine in light of the Crusades. The Crusades were called by Popes, but this in and of itsef does not constitute infallibility. The Pope was not making a statement regarding faith and morals. The Church universal did not make it an article of faith or a dogma to go on a Crusade.
It must be remembered that when Catholics talk about the magisterium and infallibility we are talking about the Pope working in one mind with the bishops, sacred scripture and tradition with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to teach on matters of faith, morals and dogma. Another poster mentioned that there are only 4 infallible statements over 700 years. So every time the Pope expresses an opinion on the weather or what team he likes in a soccer match he is not speaking infallibly.
The Crusades and Inquisition were a sad and indeed bloody period of history. Many people died needlessly for all the wrong reasons. That being said that time in history has no bearing on the Church’s ability to teach infallibly — the two simply do not go together.
ChadS
Hi everyone,
I’m a Christian layperson of Protestant background and beliefs. I’ve been following these posts, but mostly listening, learning and challenging my own beliefs and assumptions. Thanks Michael and Dan for sparking and continuing this dialogue!
Michael, in your original post (this post, that is), you said:
“Therefore, in order to have a sufficient knowledge base for salvation to be possible, one must have the information from both Scripture and Tradition, neither of which will do alone.”
This was referring to Catholicism, however before that you wrote:
“The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.”
The point I wanted to make, or ask you about, which I think you already voiced along with Dr. Wallace in the “51% Protestant” post, is that salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ alone, not an understanding or interpretation of Scripture. It seems that your definition of sola Scriptura is saying the Scriptures contain what is necessary for salvation, as if knowledge of Scripture is the ticket.
I just thought I’d ask about this distinction and make sure I’m understanding you correctly!
-Tobias
I think you are, but I am not sure that I understand the question correctly. 🙂
Sorry, that didn’t come out with a ton of clarity. I was at work when I wrote that, so, uh, that’s my excuse. 🙂
It just seemed your sola Scriptura definition implied a knowledge of Scripture was required for salvation, which would mean something more than faith in Jesus is required.
But I didn’t think that was what you thought.
-Tobias
Well, I would say that knowledge of the truth of Christ and redemption were needed. This does not necessarily have to be directly from Scripture. In other words, there has to be content to the faith.
I would say so too, though “knowledge of the truth of Christ” is a hefty statement, depending on how it’s taken. To understand the truth of Christ, in the fullest sense, is my goal and my every effort, but one I don’t think is fully achievable in this flesh! After all, if I could fully understand God, he wouldn’t be God.
But certainly that Jesus is God, no mere man, and that my redemption lies in Him is needed.
Humbly,
Tobias
P.s. Wow, you’re quite the night owl commenter! 🙂
But yeah, I like that: “there has to be content to the faith.”
Not a faith in someone else’s faith, or faith in an idea, but faith that is your own, that rests in the work and person of Jesus.
-Tobias