Can you prove the Catholic faith from the Bible?
Objection: Can you prove from the Bible that the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church are the same now as those of the primitive church?
A tract circulating on the internet called A hundred questions to Catholics of goodwill (« Cent questions aux catholiques de bonne volonté » in French) asks a recurring question: « Can you prove from the Bible… » For instance: Can you prove that the word « Pope » is found in Scripture (question 13), that purgatory exists (question 76), that the sign of the cross is a means of grace and will repel the devil (question 90).
Faced with such questions, many Catholics — who don’t always know their Bibles as well as evangelicals do — feel ill at ease. Because truth be told, they don’t recall ever hearing the words « pope » or « purgatory » in the Bible readings at mass. We’ll go over these questions later, but for now, it’s worth noting they all rest on an unstated presupposition: that the Bible is the sole source of truth. What might be called « Bible only » or « sola Scriptura ».
In evangelical faith, the Bible is :
- Inspired by God, who is the final author of the text
- Without error (inerrant) at least in matters of faith and morals
- Sufficient, because it contains all that is needed to be saved
- Clear in its essentials
- and of course, the only rule of faith
The Catholic Church also teaches the inspiration and inerrancy (and material sufficiency) of the Bible (see Dei Verbum 11). But does it believe in Scripture Alone — what I would call the “exclusive sufficiency” of scripture? No. Because if everything that we believe must be tested against the text of scripture, that’s also true for the belief in Scripture Alone itself.
And the question then becomes: « Does the Bible clearly teach the doctrine of Scripture Alone »? We can (and will) go over different proposed answers to this question, but when I was a young adult (who had spent quite a bit of time on the streets talking to people about Jesus and the Bible, and who had read through the whole Bible) that question stopped me in my tracks and got me seriously thinking.
What does the Bible say about it being the sole rule of faith? Let’s take a look at some of the passages that are claimed to teach sola scripture
Do not take away
Revelation 22 18 & 19 says “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.” Surely this teaches that nothing should be added to Scripture and that therefore it is the sole rule of faith?
If we read this passage as teaching the sufficiency of the scripture it refers to, we need to throw out quite a few books of the Bible given that the author is primarily talking about this scroll, that is, the book of Revelation that John is writing. At that time the Bible was not one book but a collection of books, and the outlines of that collection were not even finalized (since John was still adding to it!). The angel’s declaration harkens back to the Lord’s order to Israel: “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.” (Deut 4:2, see also Deut 12:35). If we apply the same reasoning to this verse, we’d have to say the Jewish Law, that is, the first five books of the Bible (or Torah), is our sole rule of faith.
The accomplished man of God
Paul writes to Timothy: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”. (2 Tim 3:16–17 NKJV) Surely if scripture makes the man of Good complete, then the Bible alone is sufficient?
As always, let’s take a proper look at the context. At the start of chapter 3, Paul talks of those who live a sinful life, saying that they lead people away from the truth (1–9). Timothy himself, however, has witnessed Paul’s persecution and perseverance, his “doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions…”. Paul then adds :
But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.(2 Tim 3:14 & 15)
There are two things worth noting here.
First, Paul encourages Timothy to continue in the teaching he has received from Paul because he knows Paul’s character and life. That is, not scripture alone, but also the oral apostolic teaching from Paul.
And secondly, the scriptures Paul is referring to are those Timothy has known since his childhood — which basically means the Old Testament since the New Testament was still being written. So if this passage is teaching the exclusive sufficiency of the scripture it refers we basically need to throw out the New Testament. Including this passage itself.
What Paul is actually saying here is that both the Old Testament and oral apostolic teaching — and the catholic term for that is “Tradition” — are useful to learn the truth of the faith and to become a man of God.
We could go over more verses, but the truth of the matter is that once I read them in context, I was not convinced any of them taught the exclusive sufficiency of Scripture — and certainly not in a clear way.
