"Sola Scriptura or Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium" by Tom

The teaching of the Catholic Church on how revelation is conveyed to us is through scripture, tradition and the magisterium. Not only is this the teaching of the Church, it is also confirmed by natural reason and scripture. Furthermore, ironically enough, Protestants and anyone who accepts scripture as authoritative implicitly assume it. This is the burden of proof I now undertake.

Protestants in general and Catholics agree that scripture is "God breathed" and inerrant. What they disagree on is if written scripture is the only vehicle of Divine Revelation. For the purpose of this article, I will use the definition of sola scriptura that follows: "Scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice for the Christian faithful." While Catholics have no problem agreeing that all divine revelation is contained, at least implicitly, in written scripture (material sufficiency), we deny that everything is present explicitly (formal sufficiency).

Tradition

Protestants object to tradition because they see it as something foreign injected into the gospel. Furthermore, they see it as something flatly condemned by scripture (Mark 7:8, et al). But actually, scripture doesn’t condemn all tradition but rather just tradition that is wrong (2 Thessalonians 2:15, et al). How we know the difference is the subject matter for the next section: magisterium. Sufficeth for our immediate purpose to say that the Bible endorses authentic tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Timothy 2:2; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2, et al). [A brief note: The NIV translates the word "Paradosis" as "tradition" where it is in a negative context (Matthew 15:3) and "teachings" where it is in a positive context (1 Corinthians 11:2).]

Not only is tradition endorsed by scripture, but it is simply common sense. All non-Catholic Christians believe it; though, to be sure, they won’t admit it. No Protestant, if he sat down and thought about it, would affirm that he believes something completely different from the earliest Christians that heard the gospel directly from the mouth of an apostle. One may immediately say that that is because he has scripture and has nothing to do with tradition. But that doesn’t work because I’m talking about advocates of sola scriptura that have diametrically opposing interpretations of scripture.

For example: Baptists believe in adult only baptism; Presbyterians affirm infant baptism. Lutherans top them both by believing in baptismal regeneration. Yet, which of them would say that the earliest Christians believed the other denominations’ position? Can one seriously imagine that the apostle Peter went about teaching adult only baptism, and the apostle John went about teaching infant baptism, and the apostle James went about teaching baptismal regeneration?

Contradictory teachings cannot both be "guided by the Spirit". For example, some Protestant groups will tell me that I must speak in tongues in order to prove I’m saved. Others will tell me that speaking in tongues was a phenomenon relegated to past ages but not legitimate today; anyone who does speak in tongues is following the devil. Can both of those opinions be "guided by the Spirit?" How do we know which, if either, is true? Both groups claim guidance by the Spirit and that they are "Biblical."

 The question of which books belong in the Bible is itself a tradition. There is no divinely inspired table of contents. Who decided what books belong and what books do not? What authority did they have to do so? I know of a three-volume work on sola scriptura that purports to prove that the early Church fathers believed sola scriptura. The only problem is that if the author succeeds in proving his point, he disproves it. Why should I accept an appeal to tradition in order to prove that tradition is not authoritative? If the early Fathers believed sola scriptura, all I have to do is say, "So, what? I’m not bound to their traditions."

Sola scriptura also fails in that it is not taught in scripture. Nowhere does the Bible teach that it is the only and sole source of divine revelation. Most Protestant apologists appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." The problem is that this verse nowhere makes the claim that the scriptures alone are profitable for teaching, reproof, etc. Furthermore, when that letter to Timothy was written by St. Paul, there was no codified New Testament canon. So if Timothy was to get from this verse that only scripture is the vehicle for revelation, he would have understood "the scriptures" to mean the Old Testament; and then he would have had four different canons to choose from.

My last point on tradition is that no Protestant approaches the scriptures in a vacuum. He brings his presumptions – i.e. traditions – to the scriptures. If I am a Calvinist, I will interpret everything in a way consistent with my Calvinist tradition. Thus, 1 Peter 3:21 will not be referring to baptismal regeneration but will be making a point consistent with my presuppositions. Protestant practice is therefore a proof that tradition is an authoritative interpreter of scripture. Protestants assume what they claim is impossible to believe. Catholics believe in sacred Tradition and admit it; Protestants believe in sacred Tradition and don’t admit it.

Magisterium

Like tradition, magisterium is impossible to avoid. Can anyone honestly say that they came to faith in a complete vacuum with only a Bible in their hands? Didn’t you learn the faith from your parents, teachers, pastors, other Christians, etc. first, and only later read the Bible under the "patronage," so to speak, of those people? And, once again, if I am a Calvinist, will I not form my beliefs around the tenets of Calvinism, making John Calvin my magisterium? If you are now patting yourself on the back for avoiding "institutional Christianity" and going with the "pure wheat" of scripture, then you prove your likeness to Calvin, Luther, Zwingly, etc., all the more. Like them, you are setting off to be your own pope, building your own one-man "Christian institution."

Someone somewhere has to make decisions about public revelation that are definitive. Otherwise, we can never claim to know anything. We call those decisions infallible. We can use another word - certainty, assurance - but a rose by any other name smells the same. Protestants have this as well: Calvinists interpret Romans 9 to teach strict Calvinism. If I question that it does, I will be met with correction. If that isn’t an authoritative magisterium, what is it?

One may argue that sola scriptura doesn’t mean that teachers, preachers, even tradition, are bad or unnecessary, but that these things are not infallible. This takes the argument back a step, but doesn’t solve the problem because statements about truth are either infallible or they aren’t statements about truth. It makes no sense to say that Calvin wasn’t infallible and then be willing to fight to the death that his teaching was true. I will always defend my opinions, knowing them to be quite true; which is the only possible meaning of having an opinion. Protestants object that no human can be infallible. But once again, Protestants deny in practice what they affirm in words. All Bible-believing Christians affirm that the human authors of scripture were infallible and some of them were not apostles.

The Catholic Magisterium

Cardinal Ratzinger has stated: "dogma is simply the Church’s interpretation of scripture." Where does the buck stop when it comes to biblical interpretation if not with those who receive the spiritual gifts given by the laying on of hands (1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Hebrews 6:2, et al)? Can anyone with a few Greek classes, a little theology, and a belief that he’s guided by the Holy Spirit say for certain what scripture reveals to us on any subject? All Protestants believe in sola scriptura, but are diametrically opposed on issues like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, church governance, the vocation of women, how many if any sacraments, assurance of salvation, etc., etc., etc. All sides claim guidance by the Holy Spirit and that they are "biblical." Does the Holy Spirit teach contradictory things? Can we just call whatever we disagree on "non-essential"? Doesn’t the phrase "unity in the essentials" really mean no unity and no essentials? If I have all the theology courses in the world, I still have no guarantee of being right. If God didn’t give the ability to definitively settle disputes about interpretation to a line of bishops as successors of the apostles, then I have no sure way of knowing with certainty what the correct interpretation of scripture is. There is an irony in the fact that Luther started the Reformation (among other reasons) because he felt that scholars in ivory towers kept the Gospel from the simple, common man. Yet if I am to be an adherent of sola scriptura in today’s world, I would need to be a classical language expert, a scripture scholar, an expert on history and systematic theology just to give my best guess on baptismal regeneration. Furthermore, how could sola scriptura be possible before mass literacy and the printing press? How could it be possible before the final codification of scripture in the 5th century? Protestant apologists will say that the common man could rely on trustworthy pastors and theologians. I say that is exactly what they did, and how could that be "sola scriptura"? If I’m going to have a pope, shouldn’t I have the pope who, through the laying on of hands, stands in succession to St. Peter? Why should I elect Martin Luther, John Calvin, James White, R.C. Sproul, or anyone else as my pope? Why should I elect myself?

Defenders of sola scriptura will say that listening to teachers doesn’t contradict sola scriptura. But I’m saying that whenever you give allegiance to a particular interpretation of scripture, whether it be your own or your favorite theologians, you are making that person a magisterium. If I’m going to have a de facto magisterium, shouldn’t I have the magisterium that succeeds the apostles by laying on of hands? It was the bishops of the Catholic Church that made the final decisions on what books are inspired and what books are not. If we can trust Catholic bishops to define the canon, why can’t we trust them for the interpretation of that canon?

Sola scriptura claims that only scripture is authoritative, but Protestant groups anathematize each other over interpretations of scripture. If that’s not authoritative magisterium, I don’t know what is. The Westminster Confession states that creeds and councils can and do err. Yet Presbyterians and others have excommunicated people for not being in line with the Westminster Confession. The question isn’t whether there is an authoritative Tradition and Magisteriun, but rather, which one. The strictest magisterium is usually one that denies that it is a magisterium at all. My complaint about Protestantism/sola scriptura is not that it allows no pope, but that it allows far too many popes.

In Isaiah 22:15-25, we see the king of the Jews deposing Shebna and appointing Eliakim as his new Prime Minister. The language of the "giving of the keys" and "binding and loosening" is the same language that Jesus employs in Matthew 16:15-19 when He, as the "king of the Jews," appoints his Prime Minister, St. Peter. Joseph is another example of the office of Prime Minister in ancient dynastic governance (see Genesis 41:40 et. al.).

Did Christ intend this authority to be transmitted to successors?

Just as the office of Prime Minister was a successive office in the kingdom of Israel, by inference we can conclude that Jesus also intended successors as well. In Acts 1:20 we see that the Apostles appoint a successor to Judas. 1^st and 2^nd Timothy (1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Hebrews 6:2, et al.) demonstrate that the Apostles passed on their authority by the laying on of hands. Jude 11 speaks of people who "perish in Korah’s rebellion." Numbers 16:3 explains that Korah and his followers rebelled against Moses and Aaron, saying, "For all the congregation are Holy ... why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?" How can Jude warn New Testament believers against Korah’s rebellion if there is no visible, ministerial authority? Christ said to the Apostles, "He who hears you hears me"(Luke 10:16). Did He intend that to be only for that generation?

The earliest Christians believed in Apostolic succession:

St. Augustine, "Letter to Generosus" (A.D.400)

For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known.

"The Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans" (A.D. 107)

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out [through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord's might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast. But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.

The Catholic position is not that the pope is a perfect person or that he will always do the right thing in his personal life. But that when he speaks in his capacity as supreme pastor of the Church, he can’t lead us astray because the Church is the body of Christ; and Christ won’t leave us orphans. In other words, the Pope is infallible when he teaches official doctrine on faith and morals, not because he is a really smart theologian who has read a lot of books, but because God has predestined the church to fulfill His plan, and He won’t let the Pope mess it up.

CHURCH BELIEFS & ISSUES

WHAT THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED

Biblical quotations on this web site are either from the King James Version or the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible.

©1997-2005 Chris Tesch.  This Web site first loaded on July 10, 1997.
Domain name - www.catholic-defense.com secured April 5, 1999.
Written permission is needed to copy any portion of this web site.  All rights reserved.