Denying Sola Scriptura
By Gary De Mar
Denying Sola Scriptura
The Attempt to Neutralize the Bible
by Gary DeMar
I was raised Roman Catholic. My religious upbringing included
Catholic school through the fifth grade and service as an altar boy
through my teen years. My first dose of a foreign language was
Latin, a necessary prerequisite if you wanted to be an altar boy.
There is much I appreciate about my Catholic training. I was taught
the cardinal doctrines of the faith as expressed in the Apostles'
Creed. The ethical precepts I had been taught in Catholic school
kept me from straying too far in my rebellious years. Guilt and fear
of judgment are strong motivators when it comes to keeping young
people in moral check. Of course many children raised in Protestant
homes can make similar claims. So my experiences perhaps are not
unique to Catholicism.
Many of the basic tenets of Catholicism are biblical. One of the
distinguishing characteristics of a cult is the denial of the divinity of
Christ. There is no such denial in Catholicism. Roman Catholics
teach and adhere to the Apostles' Creed. This is why men like
Luther and Calvin are called Reformers: they wanted to reform the
church, not replace it. They recognized that not everything within
Catholicism was in error. On another level, the same can be said
about Judaism. There is truth within Judaism because Christians and
Jews share a portion of the same revelation the Hebrew Scriptures
or what Christians call the Old Testament. But as system of
theology both Catholicism and Judaism fall short of the whole truth,
Judaism because it does not recognize the revelatory status of the
New Testament and Catholicism because it puts tradition on an
equal footing with both the Old and New Testaments.
Questioning Catholic Doctrine
After becoming a Christian in February of 1973, I began to question
a number of Catholic doctrines. The Bible had become the standard
of faith for me. It was sola scriptura -- Scripture alone -- not the
Bible plus anything else that led me to reconsider what I had been
taught as a child about Catholicism. Those doctrines that lined up
with the Bible, I retained. Those doctrines that could not be
supported by an appeal to the Bible, I rejected. Again, sola scriptura
was the reference point.
The doctrine of sola scriptura has been questioned by a number of
former protestants who have embraced the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church. Once the doctrine of sola scriptura is rejected a
Pandora's Box of doctrinal additions is opened. As one Catholic
writer asserts, "Scripture has been, and remains our primary,
although not exclusive, source for Catholic doctrines."(1) This is the
nature of the dispute. While the Protestant believes that Scripture is
the "exclusive" source for doctrine -- what the Westminster
Confession of Faith calls "faith and practice" -- the Catholic Church
asserts that extra-biblical tradition plays an equal role.
Former Protestants Speak
Former protestants Scott and Kimberly Hahn have written a book
that is getting a great deal of praise from Catholics and Protestants.
The Hahns have become effective apologists for the Catholic
position. Scott, a former Presbyterian minister, and his wife consider
their embrace of Catholicism as a homecoming. In fact, the title of
their book is Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism.(2)
While there are many issues in this book that I would like to address,
my goal is to concentrate on the central issue -- sola scriptura.
Roman Catholic Propaganda
There is no doubt in my mind that Rome Sweet Home is a cleverly
devised piece of propaganda published mainly for Catholics. Very
few Protestants would ever be convinced by the arguments put forth
by the Hahns.
The book is designed to keep Catholics in check, most of whom do
not know their Bibles. The reasoning goes something like this:
Consider the Hahns. Scott and Kimberly were forceful Catholic
antagonists while they studied in one of America's leading Protestant
seminaries. Scott had a promising career as a pastor and seminary
professor. But as the Hahns studied the Bible more closely they
found that they could not answer the most basic objection to Roman
Catholic doctrines. In time they began to see what you already
know: The Roman Catholic Church is the true church.
After reading Rome Sweet Home I came away bewildered. I could
not believe how poorly the Hahns argued Catholic dogma.
Justifying Praying the Rosary
Kimberly Hahn discusses her struggle saying the Rosary, a
belabored recitation of the "Hail Mary" and other prayers. She had
always thought that the practice was "vain repetition" (Matthew
6:7). After some instruction by a nun, Kimberly saw the error of her
ways. The nun told Kimberly that we are like children. Would
parents consider it "vain repetition" if they heard their child repeat
the same request over and over again, day in and day out, with little
or no variation? Speaking as one parent, I would consider such a
monotonous and persistent request annoying and childish. While I
might tolerate my children speaking this way when he was first
learning to talk, I would instruct him as he grew in understanding
that such "vain repetition" is not acceptable for a child of his age.
The Bible tells us that we are to "grow in respect to salvation" (1
Peter 2:2; also Ephesians 4:15). Consider these passages that speak
about spiritual maturity:
"For every one who partakes only of milk is not accustomed
to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food
is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses
trained to discern good and evil" (Hebrews 5:13-14)
"Therefore, leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ,
let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of
repentance from dead works and of faith toward God"
(Hebrews 6:1)
"When I was a child I used to speak as a child, think as a
child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away
with childish things" (1 Corinthians 13:11)
While we are God's children, we are not encouraged to act childish.
More importantly, the "Hail Mary" must be rejected based on its
unbiblical line of "Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of our death."(3) If any prayer is to be repeated over
and over again, why not use the one Jesus taught His disciples to
pray? Why not the Lord's Prayer? When Jesus' disciples asked Him
to teach them to pray, He didn't teach them the "Hail, Mary."
An Appeal to "Tradition"
No biblical justification can be found for praying the Rosary. But this
does not matter to Catholics since they claim the authority of
tradition. The real debate is whether sola scriptura is a doctrine that
is taught in the Bible. Does the Bible teach that the Bible alone is the
Christian's "only rule of faith and obedience?" Scott Hahn and other
Catholics maintain that it does not.
The issue that sent Scott Hahn over the edge into considering
Roman Catholic doctrine was a question a student asked him about
sola scriptura. Here is how Scott recounts the confrontation:
"Professor Hahn, you've shown us that sola fide isn't scriptural [sic]
-- how the battle cry of the Reformation is off-base when it comes
to interpreting Paul [sic]. As you know, the other battle cry of the
Reformation was sola scriptura; the Bible alone is our authority,
rather than the pope, church councils or Tradition. Professor, where
does the Bible teach that 'Scripture alone' is our sole authority?"(4)
What was Scott's response? "I looked at him and broke into a cold
sweat." Scott writes that he "never heard that question before." This
encounter shook Scott. He writes that he "studied all week long" and
"got nowhere." Then he "called two of the best theologians in
America as well as some of [his] former professors."(5) I must
admit that if I were to accept the answers that Scott received from
these "two best theologians in the country" I too would have to give
up the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Jesus and Sola Scriptura
What amazes me is that a seminary-trained scholar like Scott Hahn
had to make these calls. Demonstrating sola scriptura from the Bible
is not very difficult. Jesus used the Bible to counter the arguments of
Satan. Scripture was quoted, not tradition (Matthew 4:1-10 and Luke
4:1-12). The same can be said about His debates with the religious
leaders. He asks them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures?"
(Matthew 21:42). He appeal is not made to any ecclesiastical body,
the priesthood, or tradition.
The Sadducees, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection, hoped
to trap Jesus with a question that seems to have no rational or
biblical answer. Jesus, with all the prerogatives of divinity, could
have manufactured a legitimate and satisfactory answer without an
appeal to Scripture. He did not. Instead, he tells them, "You are
mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God"
(Matthew 22:29). Here we find Jesus rejecting ecclesiastical opinion
-- as represented by the Sadducees -- in favor of sola scriptura.
To whom does Abraham appeal in the story of the Rich Man and
Lazarus? Does he point to tradition? He does not. Ecclesiastical
Authority? No. A saint? (Abraham himself may have qualified.) No.
Abraham answers, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them
hear them" (Luke 16:29). The rich man is not satisfied with this
response. "No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from
the dead, they will repent!" (verse 30). Maybe a miracle is in order,
the rich man suggests. Abraham's appeal, however, is to Scripture:
"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead'"
(verse 31).
On the road to Emmaus Jesus presents and argument to explain His
death and resurrection: "And beginning with Moses and the with all
the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in
all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27). No mention is made of tradition. If
you want eternal life, what are you to search? The Bible says, "You
search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have
eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of me" (John 5:39). The
religious leaders were searching the correct revelation, but they
were looking for the wrong savior.
The Pharisees, who were notorious for distorting the Word fo God
by means of their "tradition" (Mark 7:8), still could speak the truth as
long as they stuck with sola scriptura. When the "scribes and the
Pharisees" seat "themselves in the chair of Moses," that is, when
they are faithful in their use of Scripture, "do and observe" what they
tell you (Matthew 23:2-3).
Paul and Sola Scriptura
When Paul "reasoned" with the Jews, what revelational standard did
he use? "And according to Paul's custom" he "reasoned with them
from the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2). Paul, who claimed apostolic
authority (Romans 1:1; 11:13 1 Corinthians 9:1; Galatians 1:1), did
not rebuke the Berean Christians when they examined "the
Scriptures daily, to see whether these things" he was telling them
were so (Acts 17:11). Keep in mind that the Bereans are described
as "more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica." Could a Roman
Catholic put the Pope on the spot like this? Could a Catholic
challenge a Church doctrine with such an appeal? Notice that the
Bereans were equal to Paul when it came to evaluating doctrine by
means of Scripture.
Paul's argument for the defense of sola fide is an appeal to
Scripture: "For what does the Scripture say?" (Romans 4:2). Roman
Catholic doctrine would add, "and Church tradition." Paul "opposed"
Peter, supposedly the first Pope, "to his face" on this doctrine
(Galatians 2:11), demonstrating that "a man is not justified by the
works of the Law but through faith [fide] in Christ Jesus" (verse
16).
Acts and Sola Scriptura
When church leaders met in Jerusalem to discuss theological
matters, again, their appeal was to Scripture. Their deliberations had
to "agree" with "the words of the Prophets" (Acts 15:15), The Book
of Acts is filled with an appeal to sola scriptura: the appointment of a
successor to Judas (1:20); an explanation of the signs at Pentecost
(2:14-21); the proof of the resurrection (2:30-36); the explanation for
Jesus' sufferings (3:18); the defense of Stephen (7); Philip's
encounter with the Ethiopian and the explanation of the suffering
Redeemer (8:32-35): "Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with
this Scripture [Isaiah 53] he preached Jesus to him" (verse 35). In
the Book of Acts the appeal is always to Scripture (10:43; 13:27;
18:4-5; 24:14; 26:22-23, 27; 28:23). The word tradition is nowhere to
be found.
Scripture and Tradition
But what of those verses that discuss the validity of tradition? These
were very troubling to Scott and Kimberly Hahn, especially 2
Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the
traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by
letter from us." Before we look at this verse, consider the Old
Testament. Prior to its inscripturation, most people heard God's
Word "in many portions and in many ways" (Hebrews 1:1). Some of
this revelation came by way of oral instruction and written
communiques. Over time this revelation came together in
inscripturated form designated "Scripture" in the New Testament.
By the time of Jesus' birth this body of written revelation was
recognized as being authoritative (Matthew 2:5; Luke 2:22-24). No
church council was called to place its imprimatur on these Old
Testament books. The Old Testament canon -- Scripture -- was not
the product of the Old Testament church. "The church has no
authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the
canon control, creates and defines the church of Christ."(6)
Once the completed written revelation was in the hands of the
people, appeal was always made to this body of material as
Scripture. Scripture plus tradition is not a consideration. In fact,
Jesus condemns the Pharisees and scribes because they made the
claim that their religious traditions were on an equal par with
Scripture (Mark 7:1-13). The Roman Catholic answer to this is
self-refuting: "Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned
only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that
undercut Christian truths."(7) Precisely. But how does one
determine whether a tradition is an "erroneous tradition"? Sola
scriptura! The Catholic Church maintains that the appeal must be
made to the Church whose authority is based on Scripture plus
tradition. But this is begging the question. How could anyone ever
claim that a tradition is erroneous if the Catholic Church begins with
the premise that Scripture and tradition, as determined by the
Catholic Church, are authoritative?
How, then, is Paul using tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15? New
Testament tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus passed down to the
apostles. This is why Paul could write:
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to
you, which also you received, in which you also stand, by which also
you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you,
unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first
importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins
according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He
was raised on the third day according to the scriptures (1
Corinthians 15:1-4).
In time, these New Testament doctrines -- traditions -- became
inscripturated in the same way Old Testament doctrines became
inscripturated. When the Old Testament canon closed, the canon
was referred to as Scripture. The same is true of the development
of the New Testament canon. After a complete end had been made
of the Old Covenant order in A.D. 70, the canon closed. All New
Testament books were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem
in A.D. 70. All that God wanted His church to know about "faith
and life" can be found in Scripture, Old and New Testament
revelation. The Westminster Confession of Faith states it this way:
All synods and councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general
or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not
to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in
both (Ephesians 2:20; Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 2:5; 2 Corinthians
1:14) (WCF 31:4).
Any "tradition" that the church develops after the close of the canon
is non-revelational. Its authority is not in any way equal to the Bible.
All creeds and confessions are subject to change based on appeal to
Scripture alone.
The denial of sola scriptura is Roman Catholicism's foundational
error.
End Notes
(1) Bob Moran, A Closer Look at Catholicism: A Guide for
Protestants (Dallas, TX: Waco, 1986), 60.
(2) San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1983.
(3) This line is not found in the Bible. Most of the "Hail Mary" is a
patchwork of Scripture verses that are descriptive of Mary and her
special calling (Luke 1:28, 30, 48). The angel Gabriel is not uttering a
prayer, nor does he encourage anyone to turn his words into a
prayer.
(4) Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, 51.
(5) Ibid, 52.
(6) Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Concept and Importance of Canonicity,"
Antithesis 1:5 (September/October 1990), 43.
(7) Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack
on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" (San Francisco, CA:
Ignatius Press, 1988, 141.
Back to: Foundations Homepage