On the
Authority of the Roman Catholic Church and Sola Scriptura
By Matt Birchmeier, Former Catholic
Since the early days of Christianity, the Catholic
Church has claimed to be the “One True Church” of Christianity, teaching the masses
the true message of Christianity and interpreting the issues that arise, in
light of the Bible and historical church tradition and apostolic
succession. The Roman Catholic Church
further claims that the Popes are inerrant, as they are God’s chosen representatives
on Earth. Yet, a cursory study of the
history of Europe in the Middle Ages reveals that corruption and bribery within
the church were not uncommon, and that “heretical” Jews or Protestants were
even tortured or burned at the stake.
Small wonder, then, that Martin Luther objected to the idea that the
Roman Catholic Church was the “One True Church” and advocated a reliance on
Scripture alone, or Sola Scriptura.
Was Luther wrong? Are we, as
Christians, to rely solely on the Scripture in the Protestant Bible, or does
the Catholic Church, with its slightly longer Bible and history of Papal
interpretations and edicts, provide our source of God’s revelation and
instruction?
But first, a few words to Catholic and non-Catholic
reader alike. The purpose of this piece
is not to insult or harass Catholics.
My issue is not with Catholics themselves but rather with the official
Roman Catholic Church and its claims to divine power and authority. I am confident that many Catholics would
agree with me on some of my criticisms of the Catholic Church – its unbiblical
ban on married priests, its unbiblical prohibition of artificial birth control,
its abuses of power in covering up for priests who molest young children, etc. I hope to encourage everyone to think
critically about who we, as Christians, trust and why we trust them. In fact, I am even more critical of
Protestant pastors and denominations that deviate from belief in, and teaching
of, true Biblical Christianity, whether for their power or financial gain, or
for popular acceptance (Protestant abuses will be the subject of a future
article). I myself have been, in my
lifetime, both a Catholic and a Protestant, and I hold dear to strong
relationships that I have with members of both groups, including the vast
majority of my family, and my prayer is that all of us Christians would have a
strong faith in Jesus Christ. So I hope
the reader will bear with me patiently, and will “Test everything” and “Hold on
to the good.” (1 Thess 5:21)
I approach all religion with a skeptical view, and I
believe a skeptical view is important and even innate in our nature. The first letter of John even tells us to
test the spirits to see if they are from God (1 John 4:1). If we place our faith in any religion just
because someone offers it to us, we could be Catholic one week, Buddhist the
next week, Mormon the following week, a Jehovah’s Witness the next, and so
on. These religions are contradictory
at their core level, so we cannot fully believe them all at the same time. We may appreciate some aspects of many
different faiths, but we cannot truthfully hold to a world view that fully
embraces multiple contradictory religions.
We cannot be an atheist Buddhist and a monotheistic Catholic at the same
time. We cannot simultaneously deny
Jesus’ resurrection, as the Muslims do, while proclaiming His resurrection as a
Christian. Clearly, we discern between religions,
asking questions such as: Does this make sense in light of history? Do the ardent followers of this faith say
that their faith is meaningful to them?
Does this faith encourage me to help other people? Does this system appeal to my selfish desires
or does it encourage me to be a better person?
Could this religion have been started by a charismatic leader who wanted
power for himself? If a religion claims
to know some sort of God (and most do make that claim), we may ask how they
claim to know God. Was their holy book
written as a revelation given to one man, such as Mohammed or Joseph Smith, or
was it written by many people over many centuries? Does their theology include any substantiated miraculous
events? I believe that these, and many
others, are questions that we intuitively ask about any religion or religious
organization, before we place any trust in them.
So how do we respond to these questions? Here, I will discuss specifically the Roman
Catholic position and the generally Protestant position of Sola Scriptura. I have put my faith in Jesus Christ because,
according to multiple accounts and supported by much prophesy, Jesus Christ was
a man who claimed to be God and then proved his claim by rising from the
dead. His claim to deity was
established by multiple eyewitnesses, most of whom were killed for their proclamation
that Jesus is God, so they weren’t self-serving egomaniacs or making up stories
for fun – in fact, they even explicitly deny that they made up the New
Testament (II Pet 1:16). The Bible is
so amazing in its level of detail about times, places, and even the sometimes
thickheaded nature of the Apostles that I have to conclude that it wasn’t a
made-up document, particularly in light of Old Testament prophesy and the
Jewish tradition of keeping written records for over a millennium. In such an amazing world view, in such an
amazing Bible, in such an amazing redeemer, even a skeptic like me can place
his faith, knowing that Jesus Christ is God’s revelation to man on Earth.
The fundamental, historical theology of the Catholic
Church agrees with the assertion that Jesus rose from the dead, as proof that
he is God’s Son. Where Protestants
disagree is with the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the ultimate
authority on interpretation of the Christian life and theology. So we may ask the same questions about the
Catholic Church and its claim to divine authority as we ask about all
religions: what proof does it offer?
How does it measure up to the above questions?
The Catholic Church certainly has a long tradition of
sacrifice and caring, with many saintly souls that have fed the hungry, clothed
the poor and the orphaned, cared for the sick, and spread the good news of
Jesus Christ throughout the globe. The
Roman Catholic Church is much larger than one man in the Vatican, with many
generations of dedicated priests, nuns, bishops, and Popes that have served God
in many capacities. The Catholic Church
traces its history to the early years after the earthly life of Jesus Christ,
so it could reasonably claim that it received the Christian message directly
from the Apostles or subsequent hearers of the message that the Apostles
spread. The Catholic Church also
contends that the Popes are inerrant, because they have been following the
Apostolic succession. Has that history
of service and tradition given rise to an organization that has been true to
the Christian faith and displayed irrefutable evidence of its divine nature?
If Roman Catholicism is indeed the “One True Church”
as they claim, and the Popes are infallible in their official duties, then we
should have no examples of corruption or doctrinal abuses. Yet, even defenders of the Catholic Church,
such as Pope John Paul II1 admit to past “intolerance and even the
use of violence in the service of the truth.” Similarly, Catholic apologist
Patrick Madrid2 admits “liturgical and other abuses that
characterized much of 16th-century Catholic Europe.” I won’t fully explore the abuses of the
Catholic Church in the middle ages, but the interested reader is encouraged to
read both Catholic and non-Catholic accounts of the events of the Church
throughout history. I commend the
modern-day Church leaders who ask for forgiveness for past abuses, and implore
all Protestant believers to do the same whenever abuse is observed among any
Christians.
Next one may ask: have Catholic doctrines ever
changed during history? For example,
the topic of married priests may be considered. Given that Catholics acknowledge that priests and even popes were
married in the early centuries of the Church,3 can they claim that
this policy, which is not enumerated in Scripture,4 is an
unchanging doctrine of the one true church?
If they claim as much, this scenario begs the question: which is the
true church, the original one that allowed married priests, or the present-day
one that does not allow married priests?
Both doctrines cannot be simultaneously correct, and Paul’s teachings on
the matter clearly indicate that marriage is acceptable. Another doctrine that comes to mind is that
of Purgatory. In Catholic doctrine,
Purgatory refers to a place of spiritual existence where Catholics, forgiven of
their sins, spend time to serve penance for sins. One may consider whether Purgatory was a doctrine of the early
church – the evidence seems lacking.
The term Purgatory does not appear in the Catholic nor Protestant bible,
but is most strongly based on a reading of the book of II Maccabees 12 and may
have been formally stated in church councils in the Middle Ages.5 Much of Martin Luther’s criticism of the
Catholic Church arose from the doctrine of Purgatory and the apparent selling
of forgiveness by the church. I believe
that the Catholic Church is shying away from this doctrine, in an attempt to
avoid controversy over allegations of bribery, and as such is exhibiting its
lack of adherence to its own doctrine.
The doctrine also seems directly contradictory to the concept of the
sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as full atonement for our sins, such
that our entry into Heaven is based on our belief in Him (John 3:16, 1 John
1:9).
Given the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and
the variations in its teachings, is this the “One True Church” that all
Christians are supposed to trust? If
the Roman Catholic Church lost its ability to follow God’s word and God’s
instructions once, what is stopping it from losing its way again? In more modern times, we see reform in the
Catholic Church again, with the Vatican II council in the 1960’s. Although the Church held tightly to certain
traditions before that council, such as the celebration of the Mass in Latin or
the rules on fasting, some of these same traditions were done away with at that
time, as the Catholic laity was able to convince Rome to change certain
practices. Many Catholics now call on
the Church to change its bans on birth control, priestly celibacy, and female
priests, and Rome will probably concede on some of these issues at some future
point. This trend makes one wonder
whether the true “Church” is centered in Rome, or is it really in the hearts
and minds of the followers of Jesus Christ?
Obviously, as Rome slowly bends to the pressure of church members, it
demonstrates the reality that the Popes do not wield the leadership power that
the Church would claim, and that Church doctrine and practice is not absolutely
fixed.
Biblical
Support for Sola Scriptura
I turn now to a defense of an alternative to
entrusting the Catholic Church, namely to trust in God’s Word. This doctrine is termed Sola Scriptura,
or “Scripture Alone”. The most often
quoted verses in the Bible in support of Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy
3:16-17, “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” (New International Version, or
NIV). Furthermore, Proverbs 30:5-6
states “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge
in him. Do not add to his words, or he
will rebuke you and prove you a liar.”
If the man of God is thoroughly equipped for every good work by
Scripture, then Scripture alone is necessary – no church teaching needs to be,
or may be, added to it. Two
clarifications are prudent here. One,
obviously the New Testament was indeed added, just as Old Testament books were
added, as revealed by God over time, but those additions were God’s words and
not men’s words. Two, we must also
distinguish between a church that claims authoritative interpretation of God’s
will and God’s word (e.g., the Roman Catholic Church), and a church that
attempts to know and preach (1 Tim 4:13) the Bible as God’s Word (e.g.,
most conservative Evangelical, Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, etc.). Jesus tells us, “Man does not live on bread
alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Mt 4:4) Jesus often referred to Old Testament
scripture when teaching or when challenged: for example, in just two chapters
of Matthew, Jesus referred to the Old Testament [OT] seven times: Mt 4:7,10; Mt
5:21, 27, 21, 38, and 43. The Gospel
writers tell us that Jesus made further OT references frequently. However, Jesus was also critical of the
hypocrisy and false righteousness of the Jewish authorities of the day
(examples include Mt 6:1-16, Mt 23, Luke 11).
Thus, Jesus Christ himself put Scripture on a higher level than the
interpretations and instructions of the church leaders of his day. Although the phrase “Sola Scriptura”
does not explicitly appear in the Bible, its content clearly supports the idea
that only Scripture is to be our source for God’s revelation to us.
The sinful nature of mankind is described throughout Scripture: Adam and Eve disobeyed God; the nations of
Israel and Judah rebelled from God in the centuries preceding the birth of Jesus;
Judas Iscariot accepts a bribe of 30 silver pieces in exchange for handing
Jesus over to the Jewish authorities (Matthew 26). In our day, one needs only look at human history, or the news of
the day, including murder, divorce, theft, rape, kidnapping, and wars, to see
that mankind – both inside and outside the church – is comprised of fallen,
sinful beings. I know that I make
mistakes; I am selfish, I am covetous.
The Roman Catholic Church, by claiming to be the “One True Church” and
the correct interpreter of the Bible, is expecting its followers to trust human
interpreters of the Bible to the same extent that they trust the Bible
itself. Given the obviously sinful
nature of the human race, the probability of one or more human leaders of the
“One True Church” going astray seems quite high; the discussion above should
indicate to the reader that the Catholic Church has, as admitted by Pope John
Paul and others, gone astray.
As I mentioned in the introduction above, I have
known many Catholics in a variety of circumstances, and have spent many years
going to Mass with my family. I have
also attended several Protestant churches of several denominations. My experience has been that Catholics are
concerned with following the rules – no eating meat on Friday during Lent (in
spite of Galatians 2:20), go to Mass and take Holy Communion once a week, say
the Rosary (which may be against Jesus’ teachings on repetitious prayer in Mt
6:7-8), while rarely reading the Bible.
“Catholic” is also synonymous with “guilt” in our society – in spite of
the many proclamations to be joyful (1 Thess 5:16, for example) and of the
forgiveness that we have in Jesus Christ (1 John 1:9). Furthermore, the Catholic mass is largely
similar in its ceremonial nature, week in and week out. Mass is so repetitive that, during high
school, I had memorized most of the communion ceremony without even trying to
remember it. I could “lip-synch”
it. However, I did not find it
uplifting or an encouragement to my faith; it was a necessary drudgery to be
endured. Martin Luther found his
Catholic faith to be full of guilt, but after he read the Bible and came to
believe in salvation by faith alone, his faith became joyful and much
deeper. I personally have found the
same trend – adherence to ceremonial rules and negativity as a Catholic, but
great joy, hope, and life-changing faith as a Bible-believing Protestant. I would never say that those experiences are
perfectly true of all people – I know joyful Catholics and embittered
Protestants, but I believe the trend to be true.
Certainly, the Catholic Church does have, and the
reader may have, objections to Sola Scriptura. I cannot hope to answer all objections, but I will address a
few. The first objection that a
Catholic may raise is the fact that “Sola Scriptura” does not appear anywhere
in the Bible, nor does the Bible tell us exactly which 66 books should be
included in the canon of Scripture.
This issue was alluded to above, in the discussion of “Biblical Support
for Sola Scriptura.” Thus, a logic
problem can be suggested.6
However, it is clear that Jesus placed greater emphasis on the Old
Testament than the teachings of the Jewish leaders of the day, clearly
elevating Scripture above the teachings of men. Sola Scriptura demands that we do the same, particularly
given the obvious fallibility of the men leading all churches throughout
history. Accusations6 that
the Protestants demand abandoning logic in favor of blind adherence to
Calvinist or Lutheran writings seemingly ignore the strong logical, apologetics
work of many prominent Protestants of the last few generations: CS Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, and Josh McDowell,
to name a few. These men encouraged me
in my own journey to faith, in ways that no Roman Catholic ever did. In my experience, some members of both
Protestant and Catholic churches may be blindly accepting of their faith, while
some are very logical and are students of apologetics.
A second objection to Sola Scriptura is that
Protestants do not agree on interpretations of the Bible – the many
denominations have deep disagreements on issues such as baptism, homosexuality,
divorce, and many other issues. A
recent example is the news regarding the approval of an openly homosexual
bishop in the Episcopal church, and the threat by the more conservative
churches to split with the more liberal churches that approved such a
controversial appointment. Writes one
critic of Sola Scriptura, “A necessary corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is,
therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the
interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to
decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of
Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone-or everyone-else says.”7 I disagree
with this corollary as either necessary or true. As a Protestant, I fully understand that God is the final arbiter
of every issue, and it is my role to endeavor to think and act in accordance
with what He would have me do. I do not
have any “absolute right of final judgement.”
God alone does. And while some
church leaders and members today may claim such a right, they take the grave
risk that they are interpreting the Bible the way they want to, rather
than the way the Bible reveals God’s will and God’s commands for us. The issue of homosexuality provides an
example: it is easier for us, as
humans, to tell our homosexual friends that homosexuality is OK than it is to
tell them that homosexual sex is an abomination in God’s eyes (Romans 1), so we
humans may bring ourselves to the expedient but wrong conclusion. However, in this case, individuals are
lifting their own interpretation above what Scripture says, rather than
relying on Scripture itself.
Meanwhile, to claim that adoption of the Roman
Catholic system of having only one Church, with one Church Tradition, to decide
the correct interpretation of issues does not solve the problem of differing
interpretations of the Bible: the Roman
Catholic Church is full of people with their own interpretations, including
those who advocate the use of birth control, ordination of female priests, and
marriage for priests. I suspect that a
brief survey of Catholic believers would show that they also have strong and
differing opinions regarding key Catholic teachings on the Eucharist,
Purgatory, and baptism, and many other issues.
The Roman Catholic Church has even been party to the largest church
splits in Christian history – the Great Schism (the Eastern Orthodox Church
split from the Roman Catholic Church more than 500 years ago8), and
the Protestant Reformation. Clearly the
Roman Catholic Church, with its Papal leadership and heritage, does not cause
like-mindedness within its own membership, so significant variations in
opinions among the many Protestant denominations are hardly surprising. So what are we, as Christians, to do about
our differences? Certainly, I do not
pretend to have a solution that will unite Christians throughout the
world. My encouragements here are
twofold:
-
focus on the main truths, to
“seek first His kingdom and His righteousness” (Mt 6:33). We, as Christians, are to focus on
preparation for our entrance into Heaven, to “work out your salvation with fear
and trembling” (Phil 2:12).
-
guard against false teachers,
who would pervert the Gospel for the sake of their own power or popularity, and
admonish those people who will not put up with sound doctrine (2 Tim 4:3).
Another objection to Sola Scriptura is that
such a doctrine presumes that individual believers can get a copy of the Bible,
and have the time, energy, and mental faculties to read it for him or her
self. The critic may then point out
that, during most of church history through the present day, most people do not
have the luxury of the free time, good diet and lighting, education, etc. to
read and study the Bible in an attempt to know it sufficiently well to come to
conclusions on various doctrinal issues.7 However, this criticism would apply if Sola Scriptura
referred only to written Scripture.
God’s Word could be read in the town square, for example, thus giving an
unlearned population an opportunity to hear and understand Scripture. In fact, preaching is exactly that practice
– and we are commanded to preach the Word (2 Tim 4:2). Can we name any Christians who understood
the central issues of Christianity well enough to enter into Heaven on the
basis of faith in Jesus Christ and yet did not have the advantages of owning a
Bible? Certainly we can – Jesus’
disciples. His followers were generally
uneducated common folks who had difficulty understanding his parables, yet any
suggestion that His faithful followers were kept from salvation would be as
completely ludicrous to John Calvin as it would be to any Pope. For believers today, those of us that do
have the time and mental acumen to read the Word of God to more fully know Him
certainly should study it: the book of Joshua (1:8a) tells us, “Do not let this
Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night ….”
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura will certainly
continue to be a point of disagreement between Roman Catholics and
Protestants. I invite the reader to
evaluate the arguments made here for Sola Scriptura. I also encourage the reader to focus first
on the salvation provided to us through knowing Jesus Christ, and to keep all
other issues in perspective of that very Good News, that we may be saved from
Hell by God’s great mercy.
References
1. Pope John
Paul II wrote:
( http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2INQUI.HTM)
‘The problem of the Inquisition
belongs to a troubled period of the Church's history, which I have invited
Christians to revisit with an open mind. As I wrote in the Apostolic Letter Tertio
millennio adveniente: "Another painful chapter of history to which the
sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is
that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance
and even the use of violence in the service of the truth" (n. 35).’
2. Madrid, Patrick, in Not By Scripture Alone.
1997, Queenship Publishing. P 29.
3. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
4. Paul’s first letter to Corinth (7:1-9) clearly allows
marriage while encouraging celibacy, and in 1 Timothy 3:2, “Therefore, a bishop
must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled,
decent, hospitable, able to teach” [NAB, emphasis added]
5. http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/2maccabees/2maccabees12.htm;
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
6. http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola1.htm
7. http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola5.htm
8. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
Copyright © 2004 by Matthew
Birchmeier. All rights reserved.