Sola Scripture Analysis

Is the Bible Alone the Pillar of Truth? Martin Luther taught the principle of Sola Scriptura, that Scripture alone is the highest and ultimate authority for the individual Christian. This Protestant principle affirms that other authorities have weight, but they are subservient to and judged by the Word of God in Scripture. Sola Scriptura tries to make Scripture the highest possible standard of faith. Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura because we hold that Sacred Tradition and the Church are also authorities, and that Sola Scriptura is in itself contradictory.
Sola Scriptura asks us to reject Sacred Tradition and the Church’s authority. “Beginning Apologetics” states, “We need the authority of the church to know for sure what
belongs in the Bible” (Burnham, Chacon 16). Rejecting the Church’s authority is to reject Christ and his Gospel because Christ established the Church to teach, govern, and sanctify His name. The Bible itself says we must hold fast to oral tradition, the preached Word of God. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura claims the Bible alone is the Christians’ authority in matters of faith. However, according to Gary G. Michuta, the author of “Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger,” “Sola Scripture ultimately undermines Scripture since it effectively destroys any logically consistent and cogent explanation of how we came to the knowledge of which books comprise Scripture to begin with” (Michuta 310). A few different justifications for the scriptural canon have gained weight.
In the “Historical Investigative Approach,” an investigator uses various historical critical methods to examine the beliefs of the early Church Fathers and councils. Trends of thought are outlined, and the results should point to a consistent (or nearly consistent) affirmation of the legitimacy of the shorter Old Testament canon. Therefore the canon is determined by historical research. However, practitioners often presume the legitimacy of the shorter Protestant canon then select to those fathers who appear to agree with them while ignoring or dismissing as ignorant those who appear to disagree. Also, the results of this approach never reach the level of certainty necessary to fully establish the limits of the Word of God. This approach relies on the reasoning of fallible men, so can never produce an infallible conclusion, but only a highly probable one. High probability, Catholics argue, is not enough when determining Sacred Scripture. This approach also contradicts Sola Scriptura because it sets the results of external historical investigation above the norm of Scripture. Research becomes the ultimate judge of what should or should not be counted as the Word of God.
The Canon within a Canon Approach was developed by Martin Luther himself.
He argued that canonical Scriptures demonstrate their own canonicity by their contents. He said that the first duty of an apostle is to preach Christ, so if a book preached Christ it was to that extent canonical Scripture. If it did not preach Christ, it was not canonical Scripture. This approach avoids appealing to anything outside of Scripture so as not to violate Sola Scriptura. How, then, did Luther learn that an apostle’s first duty is to preach Christ if he didn’t learn it from a book of Scripture? This approach assumes at the beginning a certain group of books are canonical, then, based on those books, acquires the concept of “preaching Christ,” using this to confirm those books as canonical. This is circular reasoning. The “Canon within a Canon Approach” also cannot provide the level of certainty necessary to establish limits on the Word of God. Luther admitted that not all books “preach Christ” equally, making some books more or less canonical. Martin Luther himself determines if a book possesses enough canonicity to be included in Scripture, which, not surprisingly, non-Lutherans are less than satisfied with. The Canon within a Canon approach violates Sola Scriptura because Martin Luther’s own understanding of what it means for Christ to be “preached” determines what books are Sacred
Scripture.
The Self Attesting or Inner Witness Approach states that the canonicity of the given writing can be known by the quality or nature of the writing itself. It attests that Scriptures are so holy, true, powerful, beautiful, and unmistakable that the inspired character impresses itself upon the reader. On the other hand, if inspired nature is so plain and unmistakable, how can so many people be wrong about it? For example, Martin Luther did not perceive the canonicity of the Book of Revelation, the Epistle of James, and Esther. Protestants argue that Luther’s zeal for the gospel blinded his eyes from seeing the obvious. If this is true, then how do the reformed Protestants know that their perception is correct?
If Sola Scriptura is true, that the Scriptures are the highest and ultimate authority, then nothing outside of Scripture can confirm what should be in Scripture. “No one can know, with sufficient certainty, what the Scriptura is unless he adopts the norm outside of Scripture that sets the limits of Scripture. But then Scriptura has ceased to be Sola” (Michuta 316). It says in 1 Timothy that the Church is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). As Catholics we believe that Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, but the Church and Sacred Tradition are also authorities that need to be recognized. The principle of Sola Scriptura is false, and inherently contradictory.