The Chaos Argument Againt Sola-Scriptura

This year I have returned to several times is the issue of "Sola Scriptura".  It is one big diving lines between Catholics and non-Catholics. 

In short, Sola Scriptura is the belief that all Christian doctrine must derive itself from the pages of the Bible.  It also rejects the idea of a central authoritative body which authoritatively bind all Christians to a particular interpretation of the inspired text.

Today I want to look at another argument against Sola Scriptura.  This could be called:

       “The Argument from the Irresolvibility of Doctrinal Disagreements”.

Or perhaps more succinctly – "The Chaos Argument".


What is “True Islam”?

I once met Muslim woman at a local park.  During our conversation she mentioned all of the violence perpetrated by ISIS and Al Qaeda.  She assured me, “That’s not true Islam.” 

 I immediately wondered, “Says who?”

The question of what constitutes “true Islam”  is a pre-occupation of Westerners.  But what most do not realize is that there is no such thing as “true Islam”.

Muslims have the Quran and they have their traditions, but there is no one who can act as the designated and authoritative interpreter of all that data.  Without this, the question of what constitutes “True Islam” is left up to the varied opinions of experts and Islamic scholars.

True, the bare text of the Quran will might send the majority of people in a certain direction… but there are still major issues of disputation.  Areas with enormous practical consequences.  And how do we know the majority is right, anyway?  Does the Quran say they will be?

The Christian Situation:

This dynamic isn’t just true in Islam.  It applies any time you try to treat a text as an ultimate authority.   Texts, by their nature, speak only once.  They say what they say ... and cannot clarify themselves.

As soon as a controversy arises about the meaning of the authoritative text, folks quickly discover there is no one to give a final answer.  There is only the conflicting interpretations of experts and no way to know for sure which side is right.

So, for instance, what did Jesus mean when He said:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” – John 3:5

And this:

“This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” – Luke 22:19

The two original Protestant Reformers – Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwengli – famously rejected the role of the Catholic Magesterium for authoritatively interpreting the Bible.  They thought Christianity would maintain its coherence just fine without it.  All that was needed was for knowlegable and sincere men to follow the plain meaning of the Scriptures.

So in 1529 they met in Marburg, Germany to hammer out a unified statement of faith.  However, they quickly realized they couldn’t agree on the role Baptism and the nature of the Lord’s Supper.  Luther believed Jesus was speaking literally.  Zwengli thought Jesus was intending a demonstrative spiritual metaphor.

Their solution to the problem:  They broke fellowship and formed different churches.

The Irresolvable Problem:

This was the first iteration of an inescapable cycle which all forms of Sola-Scriptura Christianity are bound to follow.  That is, whenever a dispute arises over the interpretation of the text, one of three outcomes will occur:

1. One side allows itself to be convinced.
2. The two sides agree the issue isn’t crucial to their continued fellowship.
3. The two sides split up over the issue.

In flowchart form it looks like this:

Some people will say that non-Catholic Christians are united on "the essentials".  But that is just begging the question of what those "essentials" are.  As one surveys the Protestant world, one can find the results of the above flowchart working itself out on all of the following issues:

(Note: I run through an example of this in the post "The Authority Bomb")

Each time the cycle iterates upon one of the above issues, folks will either sort themselves into competing camps who think the matter is important, or decide to drop the matter entirely.   Thus, the Sola-Scriptura Christian world is inevitably lead to one of two destinations:

• Large communities which preach as little doctrine as possible to maintain unity.
• Small communities which think they alone have gotten it right.

A Broken Compass:

Now imagine yourself as an outsider looking in on the Christian world.  You are immediately faced with two questions:

1. Amid all of these disagreements, how am I supposed to know what the true faith is?
2. Which of these communities am I supposed to belong to?

And the answer is..... there is no answer.  There is no concrete way of answering those questions if the Christian faith is built on Sola Scriptura.  It is simply up to your best guess.

In fact, the state of the Christian world today is largely one which has given up on the possibility of certainty regarding doctrine as well as visible, institutional unity.

Which brings us to the argument itself.

Would Jesus have really sent us down that path?    Would Jesus have said, “The truth will set you free” and "may you be one" ...  and then set up Christianity such that the truth would unknowable and unity impossible?

My answer is "no".  Jesus did not intend Sola Scriptura to be a guiding principle of the Church.