Yes, we are continuing this dialogue. It has been a valuable dialogue and I wish to further elaborate where my thoughts are at as of 9:17 Sunday evening.

I am not a Catholic. I am not going to cross the Tiber and I don’t even have a raft for casual floating or a fishing license were I tempted. The point of my last blog (which followed Dan’s post on the same subject) has been for Protestants (and Catholics) to consider how close we really are when it comes to the historic Christian faith. As well, my thoughts are that we consider the possibility that both sides have been talking past each for quite some time. I also made the suggestion that both sides are changing, softening in their language, compromising, and becoming more tolerant of each other.

I want to focus the attention of this blog to the issue of the issue of authority, briefly visiting the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura and the Catholic alternatives. Sola Scriptura is the view held by Protestants with this short definition:

The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian

Protestants often misunderstand the intent of the Reformers believing that sola Scriptura is defined this way:

The Scriptures are the only authority for the Christian

Notice the difference? In the first, there are other sources of authority recognized (parents, husbands, the government, creation or natural revelation, and, yes, church authorities [1 Pet. 2:13-15; Heb. 13:17; Eph. 5:22]). In the second, the common slogan sums it up well, “If it’s not in the Bible, I don’t believe it.”

It must be stated emphatically that historic Protestantism does not recognize the second as a legitimate definition of what the Reformers meant by sola Scriptura. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli would all recognize other authorities for the Christian. They would simply say that all other authorities can fail since they are not inspired. But this does not mean in any way that these other authorities lose their status because of the possibility of failure.

Therefore, let us set aside the aberrant view of sola Scriptura and go with this one:

The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.

For the Catholic, on the other hand, the options are different. Catholicism holds to the view that both Tradition and Scripture are infallible authorities for the Christian. This is called the “dual source theory.” Most briefly, the dual source theory believes that Christ gave one deposit of faith (collection of teachings) and this deposit took two forms: 1) written Scripture, 2) unwritten Tradition. With this, Protestants most certainly can and must agree. Not everything that Christ did or said was written down (John 21:25). Where we traditionally part ways is when Catholics argue that this unwritten Tradition is infallible, being perfectly preserved and accessible to the Church. We would also part ways when Catholics would argue that the Magisterial authority of the Church (the collection of bishops in direct apostolic succession to the apostles with the succession of Peter being assumed by the bishop of Rome) has the authority to interpret both infallibly. Again, historic Protestantism holds to apostolic succession, just not infallible apostolic succession. In other words, the Church can get it wrong.

Catholics have two options when it comes to this issue. First, they can say that Tradition and Scripture each have essential elements that are needed for salvation. Therefore, in order to have a sufficient knowledge base for salvation to be possible, one must have the information from both Scripture and Tradition, neither of which will do alone. The second option is called the “material sufficiency” view. This option says that all that is necessary for salvation is present within the Scriptures by themselves. In other words, the Scriptures by themselves are sufficient to bring about salvation without the addition of the unwritten tradition. The “material sufficiency” view is very close to the historic Protestant view of sola Scriptura.

In this case, as we have it now, Catholics can hold to this option:

Scripture and Tradition are both needed to provide essential information concerning salvation

Or the material sufficiency option:

Scripture by itself contains sufficient information to bring about salvation 

This last one is, again, very close to the second option of sola Scriptura described above. 

Another option for Catholics with regards to this issue that needs to be recognized has to do with whether or not there is primacy of Scripture over tradition or vice versa. Some Catholics hold to a view called prima Scriptura. Prima Scriptura is the view that while there are two sources of the one deposit, Scripture holds primacy. In other words, Scripture has the final say and is the first among equals.

Many prominent Catholic scholars and theologians would describe their view this way. Catholic apologist Scott Hahn being one of them. The same can be said of Yves Congar. Some have even interpreted this statement of Pope John Paul II in his address to academics in 1986 to be in support of prima Scriptura: “Theology must take its point of departure from a continual and updated return to the Scriptures read in the Church.”

Therefore, there are many Catholics whose view of authority can be said this way:

The Scriptures are the final source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.

Lets compare this to the historic Protestant understanding described above:

The Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian, but not the only authority. They contain all that is necessary for salvation.

The only difference here is that Catholics believe that their is another infallible source that contributes to the authority for the Christian, while Protestants affirm that there is another source that contributes, but this source is not infallible. If this is the case, it becomes very difficult to see where Protestants and Catholics part ways on small issues and in the language used to articulate the respective positions.

If this is the case, then Protestant and Catholics are much more alike in their view of authority than most realize.

Can Catholics affirm sola Scriptura? No. But they can affirm prima Sciptura with material sufficiency. Does this mean that if a Catholic does not affirm prima Scriptura with material sufficiency that I think they are bound for the flames? No. Even these affirm the authority and inspiration of Scripture.

I am still learning here so I look forward to your comments.

Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!