Book Reviews
Sola Scriptura
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/07/sola-scriptura.html
Greg tries to refute the arguments that Catholics have about sola scriptura being self-refuting. He says that Catholics misunderstand sola scriptura. He states that if sola scriptura states that only the Bible has truth, then it would be self-refuting, since there is no verse in the Bible that says that the Bible is our only truth. But Greg argues that sola scriptura does not teach that the Bible is the only source of truth, but that the Bible is the only source of inerrant authority. He says that this claim is itself is not an inerrant claim but a reflection on the Bible itself and other competing authorities. He says that the Bible substantiates its claim that it the Word of God. He claims that when other sources claim to be that authority as well, that must substantiate it. So he argues that sola scriptura does not mean that all thruth has to come from the Bible, because he agrees that that would be self-refuting. He argues that sola scriptura is the only inerrant authority to speak for God and it should be our guide, not some human institution or mere human writings. So if sola scriptura is wrong, the way to prove that it is wrong is not that it is not in the Bible because the Bible does teach its own authority, but to show sure some other authority claiming the same weight as the Bible has the same substantial proof as the Bible.
First of all, I do not think that Catholic have misunderstood the Protestant meaning of sola scriptura, not when it is looked in the context of the other “solas” that Protestantism has trumpeted – sola gratia, sola fidei, and sola Christos. In that context, sola scriptura could not have meant that they merely believe that the Bible is the sole source of inerrant authority until it is proven that there is another. Would we apply the same idea to sola Christos? Would a Protestant Evangelical believe that Jesus Christ is his only Savior until it is proven to him that there is also another Savior? I hope that is not the case! If it were, then I cannot see how that attitude can be true, saving faith. But that is not how traditionally Protestants viewed sola Christos. The traditional Protestant would say that Christ is our Savior and no one else! He does not just hold to that view until someone proves to him otherwise! The same with believing that we are saved soley by faith and soley by grace. So I doubt that they had a totally different attitude toward sola scriptura.
Not only that, but there are many Protestants who disagree with Gregg’s definition of sola scriptura. For instance, at another Protestant web site, sola scriptura is defined as the Bible being “the only authoritative and infallible rule for the Christian faith” (http://wooq.blogspot.com/2006/04/defending-sola-scriptura.html). This seems to be very close to the definition of sola scriptura concedes would be self-refuting. At another Protestant web site, Scriptures are our only ultimate and infallible authority for faith and practice (http://www.eefweb.org/sermons/topical/The%20Five%20Solas%20of%20the%20Reformation/Part%201%20-%20Sola%20Scriptura.htm). Again, this definition falls dangerously close to the definition that Greg admits would be self-refuting.
If Protestants cannot even agree on the definition of sola scriptura, then what hope is there for them to agree in their interpretation of scripture? But that is another topic. I just want to point out that many Protestants do not agree with Gregg’s watered-down definition. But still, even though Greg’s definition is a new one, we Catholic must still respond to it. The problem with Gregg’s revised definition of sola scriptura is that it either still falls into the same problem of being self-refuting or it is a mere tautological argument.
The belief that the Bible is the only source of inerrant authority is not taught in the Bible. Since it is this belief is not ever stated in the Bible, then this belief is still a belief that is NOT substantiated by the Bible. So it is self-refuting. Greg is right that the Bible does substantiate that the Bible is AN inerrant authority, but it does not substantiate that is the SOLE authority. Greg may argue that the Bible is inerrant where others are not since others are based mere human institutions. But this is begging. No one believes that his source of authority is a mere human institution. Each one believes that his authority was sent by God, whether his source is the Catholic Church or the Book of Mormon. And just as the Bible, these other sources of authority are also self-substantiating. The Bible substantiates that it is an inerrant authority. The Catholic Church substantiates that is an inerrant authority. Even the Book of Mormon substantiates itself to be the Word of God.
This leads to it being a mere tautological argument. It is says that until you show me that something other than the Bible is the sole authority, then I am just going to believe that Bible is the sole authority, it really is not saying anything! You are only saying that up until now your believe that the Bible is sola scriptura. It says nothing about the future. It leaves the door open that someone could prove to him that some book other than the Bible is also the Word of God. He cannot reject any possible evidence without first seeing the evidence. This leaves all Christians very vulnerable to any cult. Greg’s statement to Christians is that “Until proves to you to your satisfaction that his holy book is the Word of God, do not believe it”. But implicit in this statement is “If a person can prove to you that his book is the Word of God, then go ahead and believe it along with the Bible”.
In a way, this it what a Catholic wants. The Catholic is not saying to accept the Catholic Church without any evidence. But all too often the Protestant rejects the evidence based on sola scriptura. But if sola scriptura mean exactly what Gregg says, then it cannot be used as a response to the evidence. If sola scriptura only means “Unless the Catholic proves that the Catholic Church is also an inerrant authority, then I am going to believe that the Bible is the only inerrant authority”, then that is fine. We are not saying that one should believe that the Church is also God’s authority without any evidence to that. And if Greg is right in his definition, then the Protestant cannot use sola scriptura as a counter-argument since sola scriptura would then not rule out the possibility of being proven otherwise.
But I find it disconcerting that Greg’s view of sola scriptura does not only leave the Protestant open to the Catholic presenting his arguments, but it also leaves the Protestant open to any cult with its own set of holy books. Gregg’s message to Protestants seems to be to accept the Bible as your only source of authority until someone can prove to you that something else can be as well. That seems to me very dangerous. But if Gregg’s view of sola scriptura is correct, then that explains the emergence of all types of cults onto the scene since the inception of Protestantism.
