Yesterday, I wrote a (long!) answer to a question about Sola Scriptura, and it went so long(!) that I cut the answer short without actually answering the question in question!
Here is the question I was asked:
I’ve heard some that don’t subscribe to a Sola Scriptura view say that Sola Scriptura is wholly based on individual interpretation and you can’t reach sound doctrine based on that. The number of denominations is a big selling point to that idea. I guess my main question would be without any kind of infallibility how can you be sure you’re accurately interpreting the text?
The actual question is: “Without infallibility, how can you be sure you’re accurately interpreting the text?”
My answer is this: The Scripture is just words on a page. Their meaning is free for anyone to discern. Whether or not you live by it is up to you. No one, Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise, is infallible. We all make mistakes, but the Word itself is inspired. Our mistakes are against the perfect Word, because we are not perfect. But as we study, with humility, we learn our mistakes and correct them in accordance with the perfect Word (as opposed to the flawed traditions of flawed men, none of which have an infallible foundation on which to stand).
And speaking of “traditions,” you might hear this verse used as an argument for elevating traditions to the level of inspired Scirpture…
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
(2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Does that verse teach “traditions = commands”? No because that’s not what Paul is saying. He is saying that if an Apostle (or inspired man of God) said something, that’s as authoritative as if he wrote it. At the time of 2 Thessalonians’ writing, Christianity was new. Not just that, it was markedly different from Judaism. It had new traditions being handed down by the Apostles/New Testament writers. The Catholics would agree with that, by the way. The difference is they say the Apostles still live on earth, in the form of the Pope, and carry on the inspired lineage, thus can add to tradition, etc. The New Testament simply doesn’t teach that.
To argue tradition is equal to the New Testament is like someone writing their OWN US Constitution and then saying “well MY document says I can do xyz.” And to that, a Judge in court would say, “well that’s unconstitutional.” What are you going to say? “Not in MY Constitution it isn’t.” We’ll see how well that holds up in court.
The US Constitution isn’t infallible by the way, because it wasn’t penned by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Bible was, and thus the Bible remains our sole authority. If Catholics really believed the traditions and edicts of the Pope and various councils were as authoritative as the Word of God, they wouldn’t regard Revelation as the last book of the Bible, but they do, because long before there was a “Roman Catholic Church” there was a kingdom of Christians who accepted the infallible Word of God (ending with the writing of Revelation) as their sole spiritual authority.
Let’s get back to that.
~Matthew