Opponents of the doctrine of sola Scriptura often produce a series of attacks in an attempt to demonstrate that some human infallible source is necessary as a rule of faith for the church today—because apparently the promised Holy Spirit is insufficient for this task (cf. John 14:26). We are never told how the fallible decision to join an "infallible" church is supposed to bring comfort, but some believe this line of reasoning is more compelling than accepting the Scriptures alone to be God-breathed. Consider one of the more common arguments against the Reformation principle:

Sola Scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy. Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid has popularized this recent platitude and many others have picked up on the expression. Madrid and countless others seem to believe that a diversity of peripheral issues within Protestantism is proof of anarchy. One of the biggest problems with this attack, however, is that sola Scriptura does not claim to bring unanimity of opinion. If Protestants were running around claiming that the Bible alone brings unanimity of thought then perhaps Catholics would have a legitimate complaint—but nowhere do Evangelicals teach this concept. Protestants who are faithful to the solas of the Reformation recognize that we bring to the Bible our inherited sinful natures, our personal biases, and our personal theological paradigms. The Roman apologist apparently seems to forget this one important aspect. The main point of sola Scriptura cannot be stressed enough. That is, the abuse of an infallible source is not proof against that source being infallible.

Perhaps an illustration will help to clarify. Consider the case of a man who has recently purchased a bookcase, takes it home, and instead of reading the instructions in earnest, he simply looks at a few of the diagrams and attempts to piece together his case. However, when he is finished, his shelves are crooked, he has unused screws, and the sides are uneven. Now, would the man have any right in claiming there is some deficiency with the instructions? Would he be justified in returning to the store and demanding the instructions be changed? Absolutely not. The problem is not with the directions, but with the way the man abused those directions for they were sufficient for the task at hand.

Now however unlikely this scenario might be, I believe it crystallizes the failure of those who attempt to dismiss the Bible as a sufficient rule of faith for God’s people simply because they treat the Bible with the same respect (or lack thereof) as did the man with the directions and his bookcase. Just because people claim they are exegeting Scripture does not in fact mean that they are truly applying proper hermeneutical principles nor does it follow that they are allowing the text to speak for itself. Again, we all come to the Bible with our sinful natures and our traditions—some good and others not so good.

Here, then, is where the true test comes into play. That is to say, if the same argument can be applied to one’s own position and reach a similar conclusion then it stands to reason that one cannot consistently use this argumentation. For instance, if it can be pointed out that there are copious differences of opinions on a plethora of issues, then it must logically follow (when applying the same standard against Protestants) that the bishop of Rome is not a sufficient source. Would any Roman Catholic apologist agree to that premise? Of course not. They would be quick to point out that there are many professing Catholics who act in open variance with the Roman Catholic Church. And Protestants would say the same thing--there are many professing Evangelicals whose beliefs are in direct conflict with the clear teaching of Scripture. But it does not, then, logically follow that the Bible is therefore insufficient for its intended purpose, that is, for the salvation and edification of God's people.

So in the final analysis, the argument does not pass the internal consistency test. The "blueprint for anarchy" argument is simply a canard that too many RC apologists use all the while it can be used against their own position as demonstrated by the myriad of issues of disagreement with respect to the nature and extent of Tradition, the legitimacy of the current Pope, and papal infallibility to name just a few. When all is said and done sola Scriptura is not a blueprint for anarchy—the fallen nature of man is.