Other Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

The Light Shines in the Darkness...

Origination of Scripture

Argument (from the R.C. perspective):

The Apostles and the Evangelists who wrote the Bible were the Church hierarchy, were they not? Thus, the Church made the Bible. Therefore, the Church is over the Bible.

Response:

The Evangelical who first hears this argument is usually stumped at first. It sounds compelling, but it gives the feeling that there is something else not being stated. It is the feeling that one gets when, in a debate, the other side makes an argument that the person knows is false but just doesn’t know how to respond to it at first. Well, here’s the answer:

1. It is the fallacy of equivocation. The argument equates the Church hierarchy of today (i.e. the popes, cardinals, and bishops ofRome) with the Church hierarchy of the apostolic age (i.e. the inspired apostles). It assumes that the modern magesterium of the Roman Church has the same powers of inspiration as that of the Apostles after Pentecost. The Roman Catholic must now prove that the Roman magesterium has the same powers as the Apostles before the argument can be valid.

2. Secondly, the argument assumes that the origin of the authority of the Scriptures resides with its human authors. In fact, however, the origin of both the Church and the Bible is God. God created the Church at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), and the Scriptures are ‘theoneustos’ or ‘God breathed out’ (2 Timothy 3:16). Thus, since God is the author of both, then it is God who gets to decide which is superior to the other.

Modern Insufficiency

Argument (from the R.C. perspective):

Scripture is insufficient to deal with the specifics of heresy or many of the moral issues of the day such as abortion. Thus, we need a living authority, the Church, to tell us what to believe in this modern age.

Response:

1. The argument sets up a false dichotomy. It assumes that the only choices one has for authority are: a) you and your Bible in the woods with absolutely no church authority or b) the Church of Rome, the Pope, the Magesterium, and all the other various theological baggage associated with it. The doctrine of sola scriptura does not preclude the teaching ministry of the Church. It only precludes the Church from being infallible.

2. Unlike what the argument said, Scripture is sufficient to deal with heresies and moral issues. The specifics may not be explicitly stated in Scripture, but they can be derived.

The Roman Catholic Use of Skepticism: “Pyrrhonism”

Argument:

Some Roman Catholics assert that due to textual variants, the majority of the New Testament is in corruption. Thus, it is asserted that an infallible Church is needed to determine the ‘truth’.

Response:

1. The argument falsely equates textual variants and textual corruption. For example, if one looks at all the ancient manuscripts of a certain passage of Scripture, there will be a few variant readings here and there, but the overwhelming majority of manuscripts say the same thing. Thus, we know with 99.9% certainty that the majority of texts are correct and the others are scribal errors. We find that this is the case for most of the texts of the Bible.

2. One can use context to determine which readings are the original readings and which are scribal errors. There is no need for an infallible interpreter, just logic.

3. No textual variant affects any major ethical or theological doctrine. This has been noted by both Protestant and Roman Catholic Biblical experts.

Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/98.htm