Formal Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture, Part 2

The fact that the God of the covenant is triune becomes very clear now: it becomes evident that he must needs be triune, and that salvation itself rests upon a threefold principle. This trinitarian revelation is not limited to a few texts; the entire N.T. is trinitarian in character. God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the source of all blessing, comfort, and salvation. Christ’s birth and baptism reveal the trinity, Mat 1:18 ff; Luke 1:35; Mat 3:16, 17; Mark 1:10, 11; Luke 3:21, 22. Christ’s teaching is trinitarian throughout. He declares unto us the Father, whom he describes as a Spirit who has life in himself, John 4:24; 5:26; and who is in a very special sense his Father, Mat 11:27; John 2:16; 5:17. Though Christ and the Father are distinct, nevertheless, the former is the only begotten and beloved Son of the Father, Mat 11:27; 21-37-39; John 3:16; etc. equal to him in glory, life, and power, John 1:14; 5:26; 10:30. And the Holy Spirit who leads Christ and qualifies him for his tasks, Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1, 14; John 3:34; is called another comforter (Paraclete) whom the Son will send from the Father, John 15:26; and who will convict, teach, guide into all truth, and remain forever, John 16:7 ff; 14:16. [1]

In my previous blog, Formal Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture, Part 1, I wrote about how some Catholic apologists don’t seem to see that Scripture clearly teaches the Holy Spirit is “God” in Acts 5:3-4, as is the concept of the Trinity, which is clearly taught in Scripture. Even though it is quite clear when reading many of these verses above, the church fathers understood these verses the very same way as presented in that blog. Now we delve further into the clarity of Scripture, but from the angle that sees Scripture is only clear when a person wants to be clear, and obscure when that same person wants it to be obscure.

Consistent Inconsistencies

The quote above is from Herman Bavinck, a Dutch theologian (1854-1921), who clearly demonstrates what is taught in Scripture about the Trinity. I will not tell you that the Trinity is an easy concept to understand – how God can be three persons and still be one God – but it is something that is clearly taught in Scripture. Because it might be hard to comprehend does not mean that it is untrue or unclear. But Catholicism seems to have trouble with this concept, as this example from Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921) points out.

We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because they cannot, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation. [2] [emphasis added]

So, the Scriptures cannot be sufficient because they cannot be ‘within the reach of every inquirer,’ or restated slightly, Scripture cannot be comprehended by everyone and at all times. But when speaking about the ‘Eucharist’ Gibbons’ suddenly changes this stance to the exact opposite when he wrote the following,

I beg you to recall to mind the former text relative to the Promise and to compare it with this. How admirably they fit together, like two links in a chain! How faithfully has Jesus fulfilled the Promise which He made! Could any idea be expressed in clearer terms than these: This is My body; this is My blood? Why is the Catholic interpretation of these words rejected by Protestants? Is it because the text itself is in itself obscure and ambiguous? By no means; but simply because they do not comprehend how God could perform so stupendous a miracle as to give His body and blood for our spiritual nourishment. [3] [emphasis added]

So, is Scripture clear or not? If you want a Protestant equivalent to the questions asked by Gibbons, then, what about Act 16:31? When the jailer replies to Paul, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul’s reply was, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” Is that not clear? Cannot the Protestant ask the very same questions as the Catholic, “Is this text obscure? Is it ambiguous?” Why does the Catholic have the right to reject the clearness of Scripture in this verse? The entire New Testament repeats the clarity of salvation throughout all of Paul’s epistles, as well as the Gospels, and James and John and the writer of Hebrews! Is not salvation a ‘stupendous miracle’? Is not salvation what the entire New Testament is about?

William Whitaker (1548-1595) even pointed this ‘clarity’ issue out in the late 16th century, in his dispute with Catholics Robert Bellarmine and Thomas Stapleton,

Indeed all the papists in their books, when they seek to prove any thing, boast everywhere that they can bring arguments against us from the most luminous, plain, clear and manifest testimonies of scripture : therefore, there are many very clear passages in scripture. For in every dispute their common phrases are, – This is clear, – This is plain, – This is manifest in the scriptures, and such like. Surely when they speak thus, they ignorantly and unawares confess the perspicuity [clearness] of the scriptures even in the greatest questions and controversies. [4] [emphasis added]

So, the issue for this blog is the inability of Catholic leaders and apologists to be consistent about whether Scripture is or is not clear. Scripture seems to be clear for uniquely specific ‘Catholic’ doctrines, like transubstantiation, or the perpetual virginity of Mary, and incredibly unclear for anything presented by Protestants even though a mountain of evidence is presented. And the example of God’s plan of salvation in Scripture is an easy example to prove that inconsistency.

Mary or Jesus

So let’s take a quick look at the perpetual virginity of Mary and the supposed ‘clear’ link between Luke 1:35 and Number 9:15, the ‘Shekinah glory’ of God. David King related the teaching of some Catholic apologists concerning the supposed link and the reaction to this by Raymond Brown (1928-1998),

‘This is very clearly an allusion to the Shekinah glory which overshadowed the Tabernacle and the Ark in the Old Testament (Num 9:15).’ [quote in Not by Scripture Alone [5]] Clearly a reference to the Shekinah glory? What early Church father ever made this exegetical analysis? Where has Rome ever definitively or officially defined this ‘clear’ link between Luke 1:35 and the Shekinah glory? If Luke 1:35 is clearly a reference to the ‘Shekinah glory,’ why has Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown patently rejected this exegesis? He writes, ‘And it is totally a guess to assume from the verb ‘episkiazein’ that Luke thinks of Mary as the Tabernacle or the Ark of the Covenant overshadowed by or containing the divine presence. To be precise, in the OT the cherubim rather than God are said to overshadow the Ark; moreover, the Ark and Tabernacle are not the only places overshadowed by divine presence. [6]

First, is this not a clear example of a Catholic apologist’s ‘private judgment’ concerning what he personally ‘thinks’ Scripture says? Supposedly, no Catholic, scholar or otherwise, is allowed to have a ‘private judgment’ (a personal opinion) on anything because Rome condemns the practice. Does not the Catholic Church teach that they have the sole right and responsibility to make these pronouncements as to what Scripture means, not laymen such as Catholic apologists? (see previous blogs) Just an observation. (See below for more on ‘private judgment.’)

Now, let’s take a look at what is really in Luke 1:35. What we actually see is the Trinity revealed, which is supposedly a concept that Rome says is too obscure to be understood from Scripture.

The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

The clear meaning of Scripture, a reference to the Trinity, is instead twisted by some Catholic apologists into a defense of Marian ‘theology,’ as if the focus of the verse was on Mary and not Jesus. How do you miss the clear reference to God the Father (Most High), the Son and the Holy Spirit in this verse?

Minimizing Scripture

One of the major disagreements Protestants have with the Catholic Church is that she minimizes the Scripture’s ability to communicate the truths of salvation. An example of this is what Peter Chirico wrote,

It is to recognize, further, that the decisive confirmation of the validity of the implicit thought of the Scriptures cannot be furnished by the Scriptures themselves, but must come, if it is to come at all, from the subsequent development of meanings in the historical Church. It is to recognize the possibility, therefore, that in a real, if limited, sense tradition is superior to and a judge of Scripture; for it is the superior experiential continuum and the more differentiated understanding required of the successful interpreter (which, after all, is really one of the most significant elements of the living tradition of the Church) that alone can bring to light the incompleteness and the errors in the implicit meanings of Scripture. [7]

Like far too many Catholic theologians, this statement is written in what I generally call ‘tortured English’, so let’s decipher what’s being said. What Cirico is saying is that the Bible is so mysterious and so difficult to understand, for both the common person and a studied theologian in even the most important matters (like salvation), that only the Catholic Church can interpret what Scripture actually means. And this is needed because Scripture is incomplete, which causes its implied meanings to be misunderstood because they are not expressed properly. It is only the Catholic Church and her ‘living tradition’ that can bring the needed clarity to understand what Scripture truly says.

This is ludicrous. This is antithetical (opposite and mutually incompatible) to everything we read in Scripture and what was written in the first 300 years of the church. Justin Martyr (100-165) was the church’s first apologist and likely only had two Gospels and a couple of epistles, yet he was still able to masterfully defend the Christian faith using the Scriptures he had, as did Irenaeus (130-202), who had a nearly complete New Testament. If the Scriptures are too difficult to understand, how did these two apologists accomplish their defense of Christianity from Gnosticism when they did not possess all of the New Testament books? How would the early heretical groups, which included the Gnostics, be able to understand what these two apologists were saying when their defense was based on Scripture, if the Scriptures are too difficult to understand? Even before that can be answered, how were these two apologists able to understand Scripture to write their defenses of the Christian faith without the Catholic Church and her magisterium, when neither had even come into existence yet? James White believes he knows why Rome pushes the narrative that Scripture is too difficult to understand,

The reason that Rome tells us the Bible is insufficient, I believe, is so that we will be convinced of Rome’s ultimate authority and abandon the God-given standard of Scripture. [8]

The issue here is that Protestants consider Rome's position to be an insult to the very nature of God. Do they really believe that God would give us His words and then deliberately make them obscure and ambiguous so that only the enlightened ‘Church’ can understand them? To Whom was the book of Romans written? How about Galatians? Corinthians? Ephesians? Were they not written to the believers – the common people like you and me – in those churches? See my point? Cyril of Alexandria wrote,

Therefore the inspired Scripture is abundantly sufficient, even so that those who have been nourished by it ought to come forth wise and very prudent, and possessed of an understanding abundantly instructed in all things. [9] [emphasis added]

To drive the point home, let’s take the Gospel of John. John 1 – is it really that difficult to see that the eternal Word of God (Jesus) became something he had never been (a man) without ceasing to be what He has always been (God)? Or, John 1:1 – is it hard to see from Scripture that Jesus was in the beginning with God the Father, and that He was and is God? Or, John 1:3 – is it hard to understand that everything that has ever been created in this universe, came into being through Jesus? Or John 3:16 – is it really that hard to understand from Scripture that the reason God sent His Son into the world and to die for the sins of the world, was His desire to save all of mankind? Do we really have to walk through every chapter in John to prove this point? And we could do this in Matthew, Luke, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians and Hebrews as well. We could do this in any of the New Testament books.

Even with this challenge, which any competent Bible teacher could easily do, Roman apologists would be quick to point out the Ethiopian eunuch who needed someone to instruct him (Act 8:31), as if this verse somehow proves that the Scriptures are too difficult for common people to understand. So, let’s take a look at the implications of this verse. It is interesting to note that the official Catholic position is that the Church’s magisterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church) requires that the type of instruction provided by Philip in this verse to be restricted to bishops and above. And therein lies a big problem – Philip was only a deacon (Acts 6:5). So, how was he able to provide the eunuch the instruction he needed? Was he only providing his ‘private judgment’ on what he thought Scripture meant? It is also noteworthy to point out that the only Scriptures the eunuch had was the Old Testament, since the New had not been written yet. And what was the passage the eunuch was reading? Isa 53:7-8. This is a prophecy about Jesus! Is it really any wonder why the Eunuch was unable to understand the prophetic fulfillment of this verse when he had no knowledge of who Jesus was?

The eunuch answered Philip and said, “Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?” (Acts 8:34)

And as is recorded in Act 8:35, Philip “preached Jesus to him.” And this is somehow a proof text on the need for the magisterium’s teaching office of the Catholic Church so that believers can understand Scripture properly? This is the kind of scholarship, or lack thereof, that Protestants point out constantly in Catholic defenses of their positions and doctrines.

Jesus on Lazarus

When Jesus walked the earth, He seemed to think that Scripture was pretty easy to understand; He is the author after all as the ‘Word made flesh.’ Let’s take Luke 16:19-31 as an example. This is the story of the rich man and Lazarus where Lazarus was poor and had nothing, and the rich man had everything. Lazarus dies and goes to Abraham’s bosom (paradise) and the rich man dies and goes to Hades (hell). Seeing Lazarus with Abraham, the rich man cried out for Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his 5 brothers (verses 27-28) and what was Abraham’s reply?

But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:29-31)

So, did Abraham turn to the Pharisees and Sadducees? No. Was it their Jewish traditions that were appealed to? No, it was Scripture, for that is what was meant by ‘Moses and the Prophets.’ And least you think that was made up by someone, these are the words of John Chrysostom (347-407),

So what does Abraham reply? ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they listen if someone rises from the dead.’ And the Jews proved that this is true, that he who does not hear the Scriptures will not hear even those who rise from the dead; for when they had not heard Moses and the prophets, neither did they believe when they saw some of the dead rising … but what the Scriptures utter, the Master has uttered. So even if a dead person rises, even if an angel descends from heaven, the Scriptures are more worthy of belief than any of them. For the Master of angels, the Lord of the dead and living, Himself has given the Scriptures their authority … To spare us, He did not allow anyone even to come from the other world and speak of what is there to living people. In this way He teaches us to consider the Holy Scriptures the most trustworthy of all. [10]

Protestants are continually saying that Scripture has its own inherent authority (several of my previous blogs point this out) and does not need some official interpretation for it to be understandable. And here we have Chrysostom saying the same thing, unless of course, you think that Jesus made the gospel message too difficult to understand. Is it not the point of Scripture for us, as believers, to ‘know what it says and apply it to our lives?’

These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Deut 6:6-9)

And don’t think that this is just an isolated passage, see also: Deut 11:18, 20; 32:46; Ps 37:31; 40:8; 119:11; 119:98; Pro 3:1; Isa 51:7; Jer 31:33; 2 Cor 3:3; Col 3:16; 1 Pet 3:15; Heb 2:1. The Old Testament is Scripture, just like the New, and the Old tells us of the importance of knowing Scripture, which means we are to read it, and listen to it, and study it, and apply it to our lives, every single day of our lives. John 17:17 says, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” The teachings of Jesus are His words to us, and the Scriptures are His words! But I can hear some of you saying, “And so are the traditions!” So, if that is true, then Protestants like myself will continue to ask what those traditions are, so that we can profit from them? Show us that they came from Jesus and the Apostles, as is always stated. Imagine how powerful that would be as a case ‘for’ tradition? If these traditions exist, then providing ‘proof’ of their existence should be easy. The world is waiting, and has been waiting for at least 500 years. But just like what was done by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent, that ‘proof’ will never be provided, most likely because it cannot be produced. And why? Because it does not exist. If these traditions had existed during the time of the Apostles, the early church fathers would have written about them; they would have been mentioned as existing and that they were at the same level of authority as the Scriptures themselves. But since they never wrote about these traditions, we know they do not date back to the Apostles. Ultimately, this means that we already have what the Apostles gave to the church, the inscripturated words of Jesus in the Gospels, and the inspired epistles that the Apostles wrote and are now included in the New Testament.

Historical Position on Reading Scripture

It is an indisputable fact that the Roman Catholic Church has historically discouraged and even forbidden the common people from reading the Scriptures, and it is not difficult to demonstrate this from history. One should be able to easily see and understand that if the Catholic Church and its bishops, priests, theologians and apologists promote the ambiguity and obscurity of Scripture, and state that the Church alone is the only one that should ever interpret Scripture, then everyday Catholics would have a tendency to avoid reading Scripture because of such discouragement. They would rather leave their Bibles on the shelf collecting dust than take the chance of reading and misinterpreting Scripture. You can say, “Read the Bible!” all you want, but that means nothing when you are also told, “Scripture is too hard for you to understand.” Who is going to take the chance?

Former Archbishop and Cardinal Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892) summarized the Catholic view of Scripture with this,

It is perfectly true, therefore, that the Church puts into the hands of its people books of devotion which represent the whole order and completeness of revelation, and not the partial and unordered aspect of Scripture. [11]

What this means is that the Catholic Church gives the Catholic what they need to know about the doctrines of Scripture so that they do not have to do any reading of Scripture for themselves. What’s more, the unordered nature of Scripture makes it too difficult to find the doctrines they are to know. When someone gives you a book that summarizes all that you need to know about what the Bible says, how do you know that the content of the book matches with what is actually in the Bible if you never pick up the Bible and read it for yourself? That is what the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons do, so why is the message of the Catholic Church better than the messages of these other two? Answering Cardinal Manning, it is Scripture that is infallible, not some fallible devotional book that summarizes what is in Scripture.

And here’s another example of this discouragement by another Catholic scholar, Dom Bernard Orchard (1910-2006).

Even in this present age of paper and of printing, numberless Catholics live admirable and even sublime lives of faith, hope and charity without any direct reading of Holy Writ. They nourish their minds with the substance of the Bible through the liturgy of the Mass, through the mysteries of the Rosary, through prayers which they know by heart, and through the sermons they hear. [12]

The mysteries of the Rosary are more enlightening than the God-breathed words of Scripture? So, basically the Catholic Church will make sure you have the correct understanding of what Scripture says so you never have to open your Bible. How sweet. Again, the real question is, ‘How do I know that the Catholic Church is faithfully reproducing the doctrines as found in Scripture?’ The answer is, you really don’t, you have to trust that they are being faithfully reproduced. 

Now, let’s compare these quotes with what church father, Gregory the Great (540-604) wrote,

What, indeed, is the Holy Scripture, but a letter of the omnipotent God to his creature? … Study therefore, I beseech you, and daily meditate upon the words of your Creator; learn the mind of God in the words of God. [13] [emphasis added]

Why would anyone want to substitute some book ‘about’ Scripture for the actual Scriptures themselves? Gregory was calling Scripture a letter to His people from an omnipotent God, and he pleaded with them to ‘daily meditate on its words.’ I would call Scripture ‘a love letter from God.’ Why would I want to substitute the eternal Word of God for the temporal writings of man? If I do read the words of man, such as the book these blogs were inspired by, I verify that the Scripture quoted and explained, matches up with the clear meaning of Scripture.

And here are the words of another church father, this time John Chrysostom,

Accordingly, let none of you, I beseech you, be ignorant of Sacred Scripture’s point and be rash enough to find fault with what is written: instead, accept its words with a grateful mind, marvel at the precision of Sacred Scripture. [14] [emphasis added]

Those were just two church fathers and in my series I’ve quoted from many others who had said similar things. But let’s see what the Word of God says. I could give you dozens of verses, but let’s just start with these,

• like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, (2 Pet 2:2)
• For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Heb 4:12)
• Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You. (Ps 119:11)
• I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart. (Ps 40:8)
• This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success. (Jos 1:8)
• Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col 3:16)

Here we see the importance of the word of God spelled out in the pages of Scripture. It is Scripture that we should be continually reading, not someone’s summary of what it says. Scripture brings life, wisdom, understanding, correction, and restoration.

So, one has to ask why the Catholic Church has worked so hard to discourage Catholic adherents from reading the Scriptures for themselves. How long was the Word of God in a language the common person could not speak or read? Around 1000 years! Once the Roman Empire fell in the beginning of the 5th century, Latin quickly became a dead language, a language that only the Church and the elites spoke. And since the common person could neither read or speak Latin, how could the common person read Scripture? Did the Catholic Church allow the Bible to be translated into the common person’s language? No. Before the 16th century, anyone who translated the Bible into the language of the people was put to death or persecuted and all of their works were burned. It was the printing press that finally provided a way around the constant opposition to allowing Scripture to be translated into the languages of the people. That, and the Protestant Reformation.

And this can clearly be seen in what Pope Pius VII (1742-1823) wrote,

We are overcome with great and bitter sorrow when we learned that a pernicious plan, by no means the first, had been undertake, whereby the most sacred books of the Bible are being spread everywhere in every vernacular tongue, with new interpretations which are contrary to the wholesome rules of the Church, and are skillfully turned into a distorted sense. [15]

Why was the early church encouraging the copying, transmission and daily reading of Scripture if Scripture was so dangerous to read? Why was the Hebrew Old Testament Translated into Greek? Why was the Greek Old Testament adopted by the early church? Why were the New Testament books translated into Latin? The answer to these questions is simple - ‘So they could be read by the people to whom they were written.’ The Word of God is not just for the leaders of the church, they are for everyone! But Latin was not intended to be the final language of Scripture.

Some Catholic apologists have defended the burning of the Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles because they were said to be poor translations. But the real history of these translations is quite different. Bruce Metzger reminds us that the Wycliffe Bible was a near word for word translation of the Latin Vulgate. For 150 years, it was the only English Bible. If saying it was a poor translation was meant to point out its errors, then this was really a reflection upon the Vulgate. And the Tyndale Bible was a translation from the Hebrew Old Testament and Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. [16]

Misrepresentations aside, the Council of Trent made it clear that the Catholic Church objected to the spread of the Bible in the common languages of the people. Those at the Council believed that this would do more harm than good. And it wasn’t just Pius VII who believed that, other popes felt the same way. Biblical scholar, Sir Fredrick Kenyon (1864-1952) noted that Innocent III, Pius IV, Clement VIII and Benedict XIV all felt this same way,

… if Scripture should be open to all, it would perhaps be cheapened and be exposed to contempt, or, if poorly understood by the mediocre, would lead to error. [17]

Now, this may not be the current state of things in the Catholic Church today, but history is clear, the Catholic Church did not want its people – or Protestants for that matter – reading Scripture in any language other than Latin, and they preferred them not to read them in that language either. But you would not know this from what the Catholic Church says now. She now acts like she has always taught that the ‘laity’ has been encouraged to read Scripture in their own language, but that is in fact something new, starting in the latter half of the 20th century.

Infallible Interpretation

The Catholic Church claims that only she has the right to infallibly interpret Scripture. One of the implications of this belief is that no Christian has the right to their own “private judgment” about what Scripture means. According to Reformed theologian Doug Wilson, the term ‘private judgment’, per Trent, can be defined as, 

. . . the Council of Trent declared, in order to restrain petulant spirits, that no one “relying on his own skill, shall-in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edifications of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures . . .” (Trent/Session IV). [18]

In one sense, the heart of this caution makes some sense. No one wants a David Koresh of the Branch Davidians defining what Scripture means, but likewise, no one wants some Ecclesiastical authority defining it either. History is filled with examples of abuses from religious leaders, both Catholic and Protestant alike. But one also has to acknowledge that the early Church fathers wrote commentaries on what Scripture books and verses meant. Some of them were extremely good, like John Chrysostom’s homilies on many books of the Bible, while others were extremely bad, like Origen’s allegorical speculations on the meanings of Scripture. If ‘private judgment’ is so bad, then why weren’t the commentaries of the early church fathers condemned? To my (limited) knowledge I have never read of a single Church father’s Scriptural interpretations as being adopted as the Church’s official ‘magisterium’ approved meanings of Scripture, nor have I heard of any being condemned. And what this means is, the Catholic is left without an understanding of what Scripture verses means. You can read all you want, but you are not allowed to speculate as to what it means. Irenaeus wrote five volumes of his defense of Christianity (Against Heresies) and used Scripture to refute the Gnostics, which means that he utilized his ‘private judgment’ to do so. Was this wrong? Should he not have been condemned? How about Athanasius who defended the Trinity – virtually abandoned by the establishment “Church” – even in Rome! – utilizing Scripture to do so. At some point, it has to be acknowledged that these men were either right to do so, or should be condemned for doing so. The Catholic Church cannot have it both ways.

So, if the Catholic Church has the sole right to infallibly interpret Scripture, then why haven’t they done so? Where are these authoritative commentaries? Has not the Catholic Church had 1500 years to do so? And what about Catholic commentaries like Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary? Is this ‘heresy’? I don’t think so, but this has never been adopted by the ‘magisterium’ either. What is more surprising is that there have only been a handful of Scripture passages that have ever had their meanings ‘infallibly’ defined. And what’s worse, no one actually knows how many or what they all are. For a Church that claims the ability to do such an extraordinary feat of interpretation, am I the only one that finds the lack of scholarly work in this area shocking?

Just in case you don’t believe me, I submit this: Jesuit Priest, Maurice Bevenot, S.J. (1897-1980) said,

But very few indeed are the Scripture texts of which the Church authorities have defined the meaning, and even there, their intervention has generally been to say what Scripture does not mean, otherwise leaving open what it does. [19] [emphasis added]

Going further,

Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown goes so far as to say, ‘To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage in the Bible.’ Brown states elsewhere that, ‘There exists no universally accepted list of all doctrines taught infallibly by the Roman Catholic Church’. [20] [emphasis added]

These statements are quite damning if, in fact, the Catholic Church is truly the only one that has the ability and the power to infallibly define what Scripture means. It should be pointed out here that there are no non-cultic Protestant Churches or leaders that make such an arrogant claim for themselves, but there are a lot of Protestant commentaries available for anyone who wants to benefit from the wisdom of their scholarship. Anyone can use the resources from the likes of John Chrysostom, John Gill, John Calvin, Albert Barnes, John MacArthur, and the Word Bible commentaries. And even the Catholic commentaries of George Haydock. Any of these will help the Christian who desires to better understand Scripture. But none of these should be considered infallible. In my own studies, I compare the notes of 4 or 5 commentaries for every verse I study. Virtually all of them overlap in some way in their understanding of Scripture and its meaning.

It may be because of the perceived inconsistencies between the thoughts of some of these Protestant scholars, that some Catholic scholars have appealed to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’ for what Scripture means. Unfortunately, even in this there are what seem to be insurmountable problems with the Catholic Church’s supposed appeal to the fathers. Let’s take Mat 16:15-18, Peter as the ‘Rock’ of the Church.

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Mat 16:15-18)

These are the verses that the Catholic Church uses to ‘prove’ that Peter was or would become the first Pope. Protestants have always maintained that the ‘rock’ in verse 18 refers to the confession of faith that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God, not that the church would be founded upon Peter. But an appeal to the church fathers for their ‘unanimous consent’ for Peter as the ‘rock’ is a huge disaster! There were 29 church fathers that interpreted Mat 16:18 as the Protestants do. Here is a list of the ones you may have heard of, or that I’ve quoted as part of my Sola Scriptura series: Origen (185-253), Cyprian (210-258), Eusibius (260-339), Athanasius (298-373), Ambrose (339-397), Ambrosiater (died 384), Basil the Great (330-379), Hilary of Poitiers (310-367), John Chrysostom (347-407), Epiphanius (320-403), Gregory of Nyssa (335-395), Jerome (342-420), Augustine (354-430), Cyril of Alexandria (376-444), John of Damascus (675-749), and Bede (672-735). [21]

If you were going to appeal to the church fathers, it would make sense that you would at least have a consensus in your favor first. But this problem plagues the Catholic Church on a host of their teachings, like purgatory, the assumption of Mary and many others. They make a lot of claims, but that is all they are if you cannot produce the proof of those claims.

Conclusion

We started this blog off by showing how some Catholic apologists and theologians seem to want Scripture to be clear only when it suits their argument. We saw this in the example of transubstantiation and in Luke 1:35, which was a clear reference to the Trinity. We then moved into how the Catholic Church and her apologists minimize Scripture, where I provided two simple examples of how their position makes no sense. The first was of two early church apologists who were somehow able to understand Scripture enough to write understandable defenses of the Christian faith against the heretical groups of their day. The second example was of the 1st chapter of John, to show how easily understandable Scripture actually is. I then provided an example of how Jesus himself felt Scripture was easily understandable, even in the Old Testament days. Scripture has always taught that it should be known, read and reread until the reader knows it, until its precepts are ‘written on the heart’ (Heb 8:10). And this is what motivated the early Bible translators like Wycliffe and Tyndale, even in the face of persecution and the threat of death for doing so. We finished up with ‘private judgment’ and the Catholic Church’s supposed ability to infallibly interpret Scripture. I have provided a lot of examples throughout this series on how Catholic apologists and theologians have violated this Church stance, even though this is a weapon only directed at the Protestant.

And we keep coming back to the same thing. The Catholic Church castigates the Protestant apologists and scholars for the very things that she overlooks from her own apologists and scholars.

The Sola Scriptura topic keeps demonstrating the same fact over and over. When it comes to biblical scholarship, far too many Catholic apologists and scholars fail miserably at their attempts to demonstrate what Scripture means since they seem to be attempting to push their meanings into Scripture when they just are not there, while trying to provide proof for doctrines that have no biblical support. Their fall back position has become that only the Church has the ability to define what Scripture means, and then proceed to avoid doing any of that work at all costs. But let us never forget the words of the “prince of preachers”, Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892),

The church does not determine what the Bible teaches, the Bible determines what the Church must teach.

And this is why Protestants focus on Scripture, those God-breathed words that teach us, correct us and train us in righteousness. As we have seen over and over, Scripture is clear about what it means, and a lot of the early Church fathers’ commentaries express the same truths as well as stress the importance of Scripture in the lives of believers. It is this truth that the Reformers stood upon as they stood against the Catholic Church’s rejection of Sola Scriptura.

A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2.27.1)

Footnotes

[1] Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, trans. William Hendrickson (Edinburgh: Banner, 1997), pp. 264-265, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 201.
[2] James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, The Faith of Our Fathers: Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, 83 ed. (Rockford: Tan, 1980), p. 73, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 201.
[3] Ibid, p. 239, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 201-202.
[4] William Whitiker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. And ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, 1849), p. 401.
[5] Robert Sungenis, Not by Scripture Alone, (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), p. 189. Online PDF version.
[6] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 202.
[7] Peter Chirico, S.S., Infallibility: The Crossroads of Doctrine (Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, 1977), p. 33, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 203.
[8] James R White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1996), p. 92, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 203.
[9] William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol 3, pp. 282-283, as quoted in David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 204.
[10] F. Allen, trans., Four Discourses of Chrysostom, Chiefly on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazaraus, 4th Sermon, (London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1869), pp. 96-99, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), pp. 207-208.
[11] Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, 1865), p. 201, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 211.
[12] Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, (London: Thomas Nelson, 1953), p. 11, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 212.
[13] William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd ed., (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), Vol3, pp. 210-211, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 212.
[14] Fathers of the Church, (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America), Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 29.22, p. 213, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 212.
[15] Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Source of Catholic Dogma (Powers Lake:Marian House, 1954), p. 398-399, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 215.
[16] Summarized from David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 216.
[17] Sir Fredrick Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 4th ed. (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1939), pp. 214-215, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 217.
[18] Doug Wilson, Private Judgment, © 2005. I tried to find a Catholic definition, but their articles are pages long and require you to somehow piece together a definition.
[19] F.F. Bruce and E.G. Rupp, eds, Holy Book and Holy Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 181, as quoted by David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 222.
[20] David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol I, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), p. 222.
[21] William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith Vol II, (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001), Appendix A, pp. 439-445. See their quotes in support of the Protestant position, which stands in direct contradiction of the Catholic Church position.

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

For the best treatment of Sola Scriptura in book form, please consider investing in the 3 volume set of: David T. King and William Webster, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001). It's the guide I'm using to integrate some of my own study on this important subject. This book set is inexpensive and worth every penny.