On the forefront, there appear to be rampant spitfires in both the Catholic and Protestant camps. Sometimes issues are skirted and potshots are exchanged. My hope is that this debate offers a more balanced approach to the specific subject at hand. Now, the doctrine of sola Scriptura, the subject of our debate, is generally regarded as one of the foremost issues leading to conversion away from Evangelical/Protestant denominations toward Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox. I am grateful to Kevin Tierney for inviting me to intelligently and honestly discuss an issue that has driven a wedge between the Catholic and Protestant world views. Before I argue my case I shall begin by defining sola Scriptura.

TERMINOLOGY

     In this section I shall deal with the specific definition of sola Scriptura to which I and most other Evangelicals adhere. Sola Scriptura is Latin for "Scripture alone" or "only Scripture." The doctrine carries with it approximately two connotations. First, by way imposing the least controversial feature, it is that the Bible is materially sufficient (totum in Scriptura) for guiding all matters of doctrine and religious practice. The notable Catholic scholar Louis Bouyer, included in the recent Welcome to the Catholic Church CD-ROM, decries the juxtaposition of anything alongside Scripture when he writes,

In addition, the French Catholic scholar Yves Congar says,

Thus I shall not concentrate on an apologetic for the material sufficiency of Scripture. This brings me to the second point - the crux of our division. The doctrine of sola Scriptura suggests that the Scriptures are formally sufficient. The Bible serves as the (i) exclusive source of infallible doctrinal material, and (ii) the sufficient source of infallible doctrinal material. At this point it is incumbent upon me to qualify this definition so that no misunderstanding will result. Sola Scriptura is temporally contingent in that it is a post-Apostolic doctrine following the era of inscripturation. ⁽³⁾ Therefore, in this debate I am going to defend two major propositions: (A) There are no good reasons to deny sola Scriptura, and (B) There are good reasons to affirm sola Scriptura.

A.  NO GOOD REASONS TO DENY SOLA SCRIPTURA

Since Mr. Tierney has not had the opportunity to provide a defense of his denial of sola Scriptura then I shall await his reply to the following question: Are there any reasons to deny sola Scriptura?

B.  GOOD REASONS TO AFFIRM SOLA SCRIPTURA

In this section I shall provide six reasons why I think the doctrine of sola Scriptura is probably true.

(1) The Bible affirms that Scripture is the sufficient and exclusive source of infallible doctrinal material.

(a) In the much celebrated passage in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we find the Apostle Paul's dynamic words to Timothy about the nature of written revelation:

"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" (NIV).

     Catholics and Protestants all agree that the Scriptures are theopneustos or "God-breathed." This gives divine significance to the Apostolic message. However, we must investigate what "thoroughly equipped for every good work" actually implies. One of the Greek terms used in this passage is artios. In their Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament the eminent linguistic scholars Timothy & Barbara Friberg and Neva Miller state that the nominative masculine adjective artios means "of one able to meet all demands qualified, fully ready, perfectly fit." ⁽⁴⁾ In support of the Fribergs and Miller, Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida also state that artios is defined as "qualified." ⁽⁵⁾ More intriguingly is the classic scholarly reference, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, which suggests the rudimentary "fitted, complete" for artios. ⁽⁶⁾ Thus linguistic analysis concerning this word seems to indicate that one becomes "qualified" or "complete" by virtue of the Scriptures. Even more significant is the conclusion here that Scriptures are God-breathed, used for doctrinal correction and maintenance, and used to make each person "qualified" or "complete" for every good work. Furthermore, in verse 17 where one is said to be artios, that person is also pros pan ergon agathon exertismenos which is to say "thoroughly equipped for every good work." The root of the perfect passive participle exertismenos is exartizo. The significance of exartizo mirrors the importance of artios in that it means "to furnish completely" the man of God. ⁽⁷⁾ Now, it would be quite strange to say that one is qualified, fitted, and completely furnished for a task via a written source and yet the source was not sufficient to equip for that task. Indeed, for something to qualify, fit, and completely furnish someone it must be sufficient.

     Moreover, if Scripture is sufficient for faith and God-breathed then it is probably infallible. The Scripture's divine inspiration by God and its sufficiency "for every good work" imply that God's revelation is sufficiently contained in Scripture and would not be fallible. Thus theopneustos and sufficiency serve as God's divine imprimatur for Scripture's infallibility.

     Therefore, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 informs the reader that Scripture is sufficient for infallible doctrinal source material by virtue of being God-breathed and the qualifying or complete material needed to thoroughly furnish a Godly person.

(b) It also seems evident that no other non-Scriptural, post-Apostolic source for doctrinal information is suggested to be theopneustos ("God-breathed") and sufficient. And it is only through the already accepted Apostolic testimony that Scripture bears this honored level. This is why the doctrine of sola Scriptura is a descriptive understanding and not a prescriptive one. So if any material or tradition were to be invoked as theopneustos and sufficient that could be vouchsafed by Apostolic or prophetic testimony either via the Scriptures or legitimately established divine testimony then we would have to refuse Scripture's exclusivity to theopneustos and sufficiency. But no one has ever been able to come up with such an alternate source.

(c) Therefore, since we have seen how 2 Timothy establishes the sufficiency and inspiration, and thus the infallibility, of Scripture in (a) and how nothing apart from the Scriptures are inspired and sufficient, then it follows that the Bible is the exclusively sufficient and infallible source for doctrinal material.

The argument can be reconstructed as follows:

(a) All Scripture is God-breathed and sufficient for infallible doctrinal source material.
(b) No non-Scriptural sources are God-breathed and sufficient for infallible doctrinal source material.
(c) Therefore, only Scripture is God-breathed and sufficient for infallible doctrinal source material.

(2) Jesus' statements and Apostolic references to "It is written . . . " in deciding doctrinal issues indicates the exalted position of Scripture in the absence of new revelation.
     That Jesus and the Apostles on occasion appealed to Scripture in deciding doctrinal disputes is evident in several passages. Jesus opposes the Satan by appealing to the Scriptures by thrice proclaiming "It is written . . . It is also written . . . For it is written . . . " (Matt. 4:4, 7-10). This is not to say the Jesus could not have acted on his own authority (because he often did so - see Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18). Because Jesus was (and is) the divine Word (cf. John 1:1, 14) he is also the source of ongoing revelation. But in the absence of need for further revelation, the historical written material was exclusive and sufficient. The Apostles also appealed to the Scriptures to settle doctrinal issues and comfort the readers (Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; Rom. 1:2; 15:4; 1 Cor. 4:6 - "[do not] go beyond what is written"; 15:3-4; 2 Peter 3:16 - In this passage Peter is concerned about critics of the Scriptures and not merely the Church in general).

(3) Scripture is superior to non-biblical tradition in the absence of new revelation.
     When the Jerusalem Pharisees confronted Jesus about their traditional practice of hand-washing then Jesus rebuked them by overriding their authority with Scripture (Matt. 15:1-6). Admittedly, it is not as though proper tradition would have been upbraided if the Pharisees were in tune with the nature of the Torah but the significance of Matthew 15 is to suggest that in a situation of theological struggle, preference is made by Jesus to appeal to Scripture.

(4) Paul admonishes the Corinthians to not go beyond what is written when no new revelation is required.
     In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians he tells them to avoid foolish judgments about who carries the most wisdom (1 Cor. 3:18 - 4:5). Because Paul and Apollos are merely servants of Christ no one is to "judge . . . before the appointed time" (v. 5). Instead, the Corinthian quarrelers are to succumb to Scripture by virtue of Paul's admonition: "Do not go beyond what is written" (v. 6). Rather then speculate on who is wiser, Paul says, one ought to refer only to what has been clearly revealed in "what is written." Paul's argument is a restatement of Deuteronomy 29:29 which refers specifically to the written Law. Thus Scripture is the arbitrator of disputed revelation.

(5) There was a qualitative significance in grafting a written record rather than retaining an oral transmission.
     In the Old Testament, Moses is told by God to "Write down these words" which refer to the Moses-Israel Covenant (Ex. 34:27). Similarly, God instructed Moses to "chisel out" stone tablets, not only for the original Ten Commandments, but for the subsequent "copy" to be placed in an acacia wood Ark (Deut. 10:1-2). Again, the Prophet Jeremiah is instructed by God to "Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you" (Jer. 30:2). In the New Testament, the Apostle John is told to write down "what [he has] seen what is now and what will take place later" (Rev. 1:19), keeping in mind that such revelation is exclusive (22:18-19).

(6) The most trustworthy source material is the material closest to the events represented.
     Historians, when investigating and reconstructing events of history, prefer source material that dates closest to the events depicted. For example, the New Testament documents about Jesus would more likely be reliable sources than, say, the Qur'an since the New Testament antedates the Qur'an by 500 years. Historical investigation in general always prefers the material closest to the original events. ⁽⁸⁾ Therefore, since the Scriptures are more contemporary to the events depicted (and the doctrines taught) then it follows from textual criticism that they would be preferred to any post-Apostolic medium.

CONCLUSION

     Thus we have seen no good reasons to deny the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura and six good reasons to affirm it. Unless and until Mr. Tierney can sufficiently refute the six arguments I have raised and posit a better case of his own then it seems clear that sola Scriptura is probably true.

END NOTES

1. L. Bouyer, Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, tr. A.V. Littledale (Westminster: Newman Press, 1961), p. 130.

2. Cited by James Akin, "Material and Formal Sufficiency," This Rock 4, no. 10 (October 1993): 15.

3. The end of the Apostolic era is generally regarded as approximately 100 A.D. See Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, 3^rd ed. (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1996), pp. 194-5.

4. T. Friberg, B. Friberg, and N. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 76.

5. J. Louw and E. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (United Bible Societies: 1988), 1:679-680.

6. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (Thomas Nelson Publishers: 1985) in PC-Study Bible CD-ROM, ver. 3.0 (Washington: Biblesoft, 1999).

7. Ibid.

8. See M. W. Holmes, "New Testament Textual Criticism," Introducing New Testament Interpretation, 3^rd ed., edited by Scot McKnight (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1996), p. 57; W. L. Craig, Reasonable Faith (Illinois: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 207.