Will the Real Sola Scriptura Stand Up?

One of the topics which Catholic apologists frequently have to address is the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura".  This is a doctrine which has something to do with how Christians derive their teachings and it is somehow opposed to the Catholic faith.  But.... what is it?

It seems like lately there has been two answers to that question.  So that's what I want to go over today.

The Classic Version:

It is a common experience for Catholics to propose some idea or practice to Protestants and immediately get challenged with:

This question comes from the perspective of a certain understanding of Sola Scriptura.  One which expects that all Christian practices and doctrines must be found in the pages of the 66-book Protestant Bible - and that it is up to each discern for himself/herself whether it is really taught in there.

To summarize, this version of Sola Scriptura, which is the most common form, can be summarized with the following four points:

Point 1:  The 66-Book Protestant Bible is the only infallible and authoritative source of Christian doctrine.  

Point 2: Conversely, there is no person or group of people who can deliver an infallible interpretation of the Bible which would bind other Christians in obedience.

Point 3:  The 66-Book Protestant Bible is sufficient on its own to deliver all the truths and practices of the Christian religion.

Point 4: Conversely, there can be no binding Christian doctrine which is not taught by Scripture.  Religious practices or doctrines not witnessed to in the text should be viewed with suspicion or rejected outright. 

Contrary to what some say today, this is the historic view of Sola Scriptura.  You can find these points laid out in classic Protestant authorities such as the London Baptist Confession of Faith, which says:

"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience...

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men."  [Paragraphs 1,6]

And the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says:

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” [Paragraph 6]

The Motte and Bailey Switch

The problem with the classic (and common) understanding of Sola Scriptura is that it is very, very hard to defend.  It falls victim to an obvious self-refutation issue because the Bible never asserts that the 66-book Protestant Bible is the source of all valid Christian doctrines and practices.  

That's where the Motte and Bailey tactic comes in.  

In public discourse you may find a person making wild claims which are hard to defend.  Upon being challenged, the person will retreat to a far more modest claim which is easier to defend... and then claim that was all he was asserting all along.  This is called the Motte and Bailey tactic, and it is named after a kind of Medieval fortress.

So if the above is the indefensible "Bailey" form of Sola Scriptura, the following is the Motte:

Point 1:  The 66-Book Protestant Bible is the only infallible source of Christian doctrine we have available to us today.  

Point 2:  As a corollary to Point 1, there is no person or group of people today who can deliver an infallible interpretation of the Bible which would bind other Christians in obedience. 

This version of Sola Scriptura is easier to defend because it doesn't come out and say, "The Bible contains everything and everything has to be proved from Scripture" the way the classical version does.

Second, it tries to present itself not really as a doctrine, but as a pragmatic fact of history.  It says:

"The only infallible thing the Church ever had was the Apostles.  So sure, the church could have infallible councils and interpretations back when the Apostles were still alive.  But now they aren't - and all we have are their writings.  So as far as infallible sources of Christian doctrine goes, the Scriptures are all we have." 

By articulating it in this way, people who assert this version of Sola Scriptura try to avoid the impossible task of having to prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture.  So it is more defensible, like the Motte.

A Final Note on Terminology:

I'll close with this observation about terminology.  The thing about a Motte-and-Bailey tactic is that it is intrinsically dishonest.  It implies deception upon the person who is using it.  And people don't like to be accused of being slippery and duplicitous.  

So when I'm talking to a non-Catholic Christian about this, I prefer to use more neutral terms:

"Sola Scriptura Major" - The classical, larger, less defensible form of Sola Scriptura

"Sola Scripture Minor" - The more restricted and defensible version of Sola Scriptura  

 In the future, I plan to discuss ways to combat Sola Scriptura Minor specifically.  [LINK]