Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia?

The doctrine of sola scriptura has been the focal point of intense debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants for 500 years. Both sides of the debate have produced numerous books on the subject over the centuries. In recent years, Roman Catholic apologists have flooded the market with critiques of the doctrine. Many of these critiques have been written by former Protestants who converted to Rome because they believed the doctrine of sola scriptura was indefensible. In response, William Webster and David T. King have written a massive three volume defense of the Protestant doctrine.

The first volume, by David King, is titled A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. This volume is divided into three main parts. Part One examines the concept of revelation. King discusses the nature of general and special revelation, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the Roman Catholic understanding of special revelation. The discussion of Rome's view is particularly helpful in that it demonstrates the parallels between the Roman doctrine and ancient gnosticism. Part Two examines the biblical foundations for the doctrine of sola scriptura. King provides a detailed exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21. He then turns to a discussion of those New Testament texts that address the concept of tradition (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:2; 3:8). Part Three of the book is devoted to a discussion of the meaning of sola scriptura. King explains that Scripture is the only infallible and only certain norm that the church has. He discusses the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture and points out Rome's confusion on these issues. In a particularly helpful chapter, King compares the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura to Rome's de facto doctrine of sola ecclesia. He explains how Rome's true final authority is really no longer either Scripture or tradition, but is instead the magisterium of the moment. In other words, if Rome is infallible, then whatever the magisterium teaches today must be what the apostles taught. Scripture and tradition are really superfluous. In a final chapter, King carefully examines and refutes a number of common misrepresentations of the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Volume Two, by William Webster, is entitled An Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. It is divided into two main parts. Part One covers the concepts of scripture and tradition in the early church, and Part Two discusses the canon of the Old Testament. In the first chapter, Webster examines what the early fathers said about Scripture and about the apostolic tradition and shows that their doctrine is that which the Reformers reclaimed. The next two chapters are devoted to a discussion of tradition as customs and tradition as interpretation. As Webster explains, the history of interpretation and the diversity of patristic exegesis clearly demonstrates the falsehood of Roman claims. Chapter four examines many of the errors the Roman Church (and the Pope in particular) has made over the course of history. However, one of the most helpful chapters in this volume is chapter 5, Viva Voce: Whatever We Say. In this chapter, Webster examines Rome's new understanding of tradition and the authority of the present magisterium. Webster provides a helpful (albeit lengthy) quote by R.P.C. Hanson that explains the problems with the Roman doctrine.

A good test of the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Roman Catholic rule of faith is provided by a consideration of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. . . In November 1950 Pope Pius XII declared officially that the Corporeal Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven was a defined dogma, part of the Catholic faith, as much part of it as the doctrine of our Lord's divinity or his atonement for our sins. . . Pius XII required all Roman Catholics to believe this on pain of losing their salvation. . . but he also expected the faithful to believe, and the church historians to show, that this dogma always was, in some form or other, believed in the Church from the very earliest times, and was known all along to be an original part of the Christian faith. This has proved a far more difficult task, and though the mass of the faithful may believe this fantastic theory, the church historians have found it a hopeless business to produce any reputable evidence at all for it. They have had to fall back on the lamest of lame explanations, that as this doctrine is found in the church about A.D. 450, and as the Roman Catholic Church now believes it to be de fide, therefore it must have been believed from the very beginning. ('Our belief in the corporeal assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary rests exclusively on the foundation that this is what the Church teaches' (H. Volk, Das neue Marien dogma (1951), p. 25); 'The fact that the apostolic Church accepts the doctrine guarantees its apostolicity and its character as revelation' (ibid, p. 72).
Such a line of argument reveals the utter bankruptcy of their case; it is equivalent to a declaration that the Roman Church does not care whether her beliefs have any connection with the historical origins of Christianity or not. To Roman Catholics, this latest dogma looks like an example of Papal infallibility; to Protestants it is a prime example of Papal irresponsibility. As long as the Roman Church plays fast and loose with historical Christianity like this, it is the unavoidable duty before God and man of Protestants to protest, to witness against her to a soberer, purer, more responsible version of Christianity.
To anybody who does not deliberately shut his eyes to historical evidence, to anybody to whom the words 'ancient and unswerving tradition' are not a mere catch-phrase rolled off the tongue on suitable occasions, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a belief which was quite unknown at least before A.D. 400 anywhere; which was obviously invented by over-credulous minds; for which evidence had to be manufactured. As evidence for the genuineness of a doctrine or an idea this would be utterly unsatisfactory, but when we are expected to accept it as evidence for an historical fact, analogous to the Resurrection of our Lord, it becomes absurd. The doctrine of development cannot help here. The 'living idea of Mary in the mind of the Church' cannot help here. The Pope's declaration of the Assumption as a defined dogma could not in the least alter the fact that the Corporeal Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary did not take place, any more than the House of Commons could alter history by passing a bill declaring that Oliver Cromwell ended his days by making a flight to the moon. Yet these are the sort of grounds upon which Roman Catholics are expected to believe a doctrine whereon their salvation is supposed to depend.
How can we possibly trust as a sure guide to Christian truth a Church which plays about with historical evidence like this? How can we regard either the Roman Church or its Pope as infallible if these are the fruits of infallibility? And if this is the sort of flimsy evidence that is presented to us as sufficient for belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we cannot but suspect that the same insecurity attaches to belief in her Immaculate Conception, and to all the peculiar doctrines of the Roman Church.

Part Two of Webster's volume is devoted to a discussion of the canon of the Old Testament. He discusses the Jewish canon in the centuries immediately preceding and following Christ. Following this is a discussion of the Church's understanding of the Old Testament canon from the first century to the Reformation. Throughout these chapters, Webster dismantles the Roman Catholic claims regarding the canonical status of the Apocrypha.
The third volume is edited by both Webster and King. It is essentially a compilation of patristic quotations on the most important subjects related to the doctrine of sola scriptura. The first 156 pages of quotations deal with the material sufficiency of Scripture and the ultimate authority of Scripture. The next 150 pages of quotations deal with issues related to the perspicuity and formal sufficiency of Scripture. This volume is a extremely helpful reference tool.

This set by Webster and King is the most thorough and exhaustive modern treatment of the doctrine of sola scriptura that I have seen. It should find a place next to the works of Whitaker and Goode. The volumes are well-written and very carefully argued. The authors back up their claims about the teaching of the early church with numerous citations and clearly show the discontinuity between apostolic Christianity and the doctrine of the modern Roman Catholic Church.

In terms of constructive criticism, there are three things I would note. First, in Volume One, in the chapter titled "Exegesis of Primary New Testament Texts," only two passages of Scripture are covered in detail. I expect that many Roman Catholic apologists will jump on this and argue that the authors could find only two passages that possibly teach sola scriptura. It should be noted, however, that King exegetes numerous other biblical passages in other chapters of the volume that also teach or support the doctrine of sola scriptura, but the way chapter four is titled could give readers a misleading impression that there are only two. Second, in Volume Two, Webster argues that Basil taught a two source view of revelation (p. 73). This is a commonly held view, but serious questions about the common interpretation have been raised by the Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky in his book Bible, Church, Tradition. His arguments cast even more doubt on the antiquity of the two-source view. Third, and finally, I believe it would have been helpful for the authors to note the difference between the Reformers doctrine of sola scriptura and the more radically subjectivist and individualistic version of the doctrine that is being propounded by many Protestants today. Roman Catholic apologists frequently confuse the two, so a brief explanation of the difference may have been helpful.

Webster and King have done the church a great service with the work they have done. This set is one that should be read and reflected upon by all serious Christians. The issues involved are simply too important. I would highly recommend these volumes.

Keith A. Mathison (Ph.D., Whitefield Theological Seminary; M.A., Reformed Theological Seminary) is the author of Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God; Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope; The Shape of Sola Scriptura; and Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper