In a previous blog, we addressed one of the most often-repeated mantras of Roman Catholic apologists when discussing the issue of sola Scriptura. That is to say, many attempt to argue that the Reformation principle serves as a blueprint for anarchy. Now while this remains a pet favorite of many opposers of the sufficiency of Scripture, this is just one of many canards with which Protestants should be familiar for obvious reasons. Provided below are some of the more popular attacks against sola Scriptura:

1. The Bible does not present a golden index. "Show me where in Scripture the Bible lists which books belong in the canon," I have heard more than one Roman Catholic apologist demand. Some apparently believe this is the dagger-through-the-heart, gotcha question that Protestants have never before considered. Now while many might find this question to be compelling, I believe it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the canon. That is to say, the canon is God’s revelation to mankind—that which is God-breathed. Canon would still exist whether or not anyone recognized the extent thereof. With that said, however, rest assured, the New Testament believer can have the same certainty the Old Testament man of God had in recognizing, for instance, that Isaiah was truly theopnuestos for one simple reason: God leads His people to recognize that which is inspired--apart from an infallible magisterium.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, recorded in his Against Apion that the Palestinian Jews possessed a completed canon (containing the same 39 books of the Protestant Bible) two centuries before the life of Christ. But how can this be? How could the canon of the Old Testament be closed apart from an infallible magisterium? I would submit to you the answer is obvious. That is, in the same way the New Testament canon was recognized: God led His people to understand that which was God-breathed. Remember, the same God who inspired the canon is the same God who can lead His elect saints into realizing that which is truly from God over against other non-inspired writings. I would love to hear a Roman Catholic who uses the "infallible magisterium" argument to answer one simple question: How did the man of God living fifty years prior to the life of Christ know with certainty that the book of Isaiah was God’s Word? The one who honestly answers that question will understand we do not need some infallible human authority to deliver a "golden index" in order for us to know the extent of the canon. Simply put, just as the Old Testament believer did not need an infallible magisterium to give him the OT Scriptures, the New Testament believer, likewise, does not require an infallible magisterium in order for him to know what the Scriptures are.  

2. Protestants cannot have any infallible certainty when interpreting Scripture. It is hard not to see the blatant double standard Roman apologists employ against sola Scriptura. One must wonder if those who use such argumentation truly do not understand the logical fallacy or if it is simply a case of deliberate malfeasance. Nevertheless, it is often asked, "How do you know your private interpretation as a (insert denomination here) of a singular passage of Scripture is correct over against some other interpretation?" Here, the Protestant could respond, "How do you know with any certainty that your private interpretation of Scripture and other Roman documents are correct over against that of any other Roman apologist?" That is, the Roman defender—out of necessity—must resort to private interpretation, because, if we are to believe RC apologist James Akin, the Roman Church has only infallibly defined 8 of the more than 31,000 verses in the 66 books of the Bible. (Let it here be noted that even this number is in dispute which only further proves my point.) What that means is that during the (purported) two millennia since the establishment of the papacy, Rome has only seen it fit to define dogmatically 0.000258% of the verses of Holy Scripture (but if one includes the number of verses in the Apocrypha then the percentage is lowered even more so.) So much for certainty, huh? Thus, as we can see, the "certainty" argument presented by defenders of Rome is in reality an illusion designed to bring comfort to those who have yet to think through the argument critically and realize it is ultimately a bankrupt position.

3. The eunuch needed Philip to interpret Scripture. Roman apologists love to cite Acts 8:31 as "proof" that an infallible interpreter is required in order for one to garner a correct understanding of Scripture. It must be pointed out, however, that this verse fails to support the Roman position as defined by her supporters. Consider the text:

"And the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over and join this chariot.’ So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him" (Acts 8:29–31).

Notice that the Roman Church takes the idea of a spiritual man explaining the Bible to an unbeliever, one who has no knowledge of the Christian religion, and then makes the gratuitous leap that this is proof of an infallible magisterium. No Protestant would deny that God uses the church and spiritual believers to communicate the truths found within the pages of Scripture—because He does. The Protestant has no problem with reading Acts 8 and understanding that one needs the Holy Spirit’s wisdom, the church, tradition, teachers, and so on in order to understand more fully that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture. It is when some make the unsubstantiated leap from a spiritual man (Philip) explaining to an unbeliever (the Eunuch) the meaning of God’s Word to alleging this verse proves the necessity of an infallible magisterium that exercises primacy and jurisdiction over the souls of all believers on earth that the Protestant will object and insist that such an interpretation goes well beyond the clear teaching of Scripture.

If Protestants do not truly understand the distinctives of the Reformation and what the differences truly are, beginning with the issue of the Bible and ultimate authority, then the believer will not be standing on a firm foundation and will have little basis why he should reject Roman claims. If one does not understand or believe the Scriptures alone constitutes and conveys all that is necessary for God’s glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, then he will inevitably be left susceptible to the false assurance an alleged infallible authority will provide him as found in the any number of religions and cults that offer that very thing.