The Burden of Sola Scriptura

Photo credit: Western Theological Seminary on Flickr

Once upon a time, in a college classroom, a professor asked me what I believed about some arcane theological subject. At a total loss, I responded: “I don’t know. What did Aquinas think?”

The professor burst into scornful laughter. I was too stung to reply, and I turned red in silent anger. I’d been corrected and criticized by professors before; never had I been on the receiving end of their contempt.

I wasn’t embarrassed by my answer, though. I still think it’s reasonable. Who was I — a 20-year-old American who hadn’t learned Greek, Latin, or Hebrew; who was not overly familiar with even the English-language Bible; who had never read the full works of any notable religious thinker — to opine on matters theological? Isn’t it more logical for such a person to admit her ignorance and inquire what the Angelic Doctor believed? I was not equipped to answer my professor’s question; I admitted it and tried to turn to a more knowledgeable source.

(A parenthetical note: Asking what Aquinas had believed was my shorthand for asking what the Church taught. But it would’ve been awkward to bring up the Church: the whole class knew that I was Catholic, and thus should already know what the Church taught, and knew also that the professor had converted to, and later rejected, Catholicism.)

The professor apparently believed that rather than turning to Aquinas or other theologians, we must all formulate our own religious convictions.

I think that’s ridiculous. Would a loving God seriously expect all his fallible, sinful, ignorant servants to figure out for themselves what Christ taught? Can you just pick up a Bible and independently glean from it all that God intends you to know?

Blessed John Henry Newman thought not. On the inherent difficulty of reading and understanding the Bible, he wrote this:

It is easy to imagine a Code of Laws inspired, or a formal prophecy, or a Hymn, or a Creed, or a collection of proverbs. Such works may be short, precise, and homogeneous; but inspiration on the one hand, and on the other a document, multiform and copious in its contents, as the Bible is, are at first sight incompatible ideas, and destructive of each other. How are we practically to combine the indubitable fact of a divine superintendence with the indubitable fact of a collection of such various writings? …

Surely, then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words, is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so systematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation? … The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility.

In a different and more famous work, as he surveyed the wretched state of the world and the tendency of human reason toward skepticism, he came to this conclusion:

Supposing then it to be the Will of the Creator to interfere in human affairs, and to make provisions for retaining in the world a knowledge of Himself, so definite and distinct as to be proof against the energy of human scepticism, in such a case,—I am far from saying that there was no other way,—but there is nothing to surprise the mind, if He should think fit to introduce a power into the world, invested with the prerogative of infallibility in religious matters. Such a provision would be a direct, immediate, active, and prompt means of withstanding the difficulty; it would be an instrument suited to the need; and, when I find that this is the very claim of the Catholic Church, not only do I feel no difficulty in admitting the idea, but there is a fitness in it, which recommends it to my mind. And thus I am brought to speak of the Church’s infallibility, as a provision, adapted by the mercy of the Creator, to preserve religion in the world, and to restrain that freedom of thought, which of course in itself is one of the greatest of our natural gifts, and to rescue it from its own suicidal excesses.

I have nothing to add. Praise God for the gift of an infallible Church.

Anna Williams

Anna Williams

Anna Williams is a junior fellow at First Things magazine, a former Collegiate Network fellow at USA TODAY, and a recent graduate of Hillsdale College.

Leave a Replay

11 thoughts on “The Burden of Sola Scriptura”

  1. Anna,

    This reminds me of a post I did on my blog. The way your humility was met is telling as it relates to the narcissism implicit in having to come up with your own theology. In the real world, sola always reduces to solo.

    Lastly, I, too, feel as though–once quoting Newman–one should exit stage left. Bravo!

  2. As a neophyte, I love this article. I grew up in an evangelical church and we were (rightly) taught truth is immutable, which I accepted and believed. But then we were taught we had to search earnestly for the truth. This struck me as very odd. I figured: if there’s only one truth and it’s immutable, why do we all have to look for it seperately and why are there so many different churches with so many different views? I won’t say that was the reason I converted, but it did open my mind up for a more unwavering, fixed theology.

  3. I think it was Chesterton who said that an infallible Church with infallible dogmas (conclusions) was quite a liberating thing. He could think his way through a problem, but he also had the teachings of the Church to help him arrive at the right answer: thus, he need not forever worry that his final answer was wrong.

  4. I read this when I became too frustrated with Chemistry homework. It may not be a perfect metaphor, but it just struck me.
    The problem I was having was this: I would think through the problem, carefully work the math, and arrive at an answer that made sense. And then it would be the wrong answer.
    Of course there’s only one right answer but I can’t find it, and whenever I try, I’m left wondering if my answer is right, like JC quoted.
    If I had a chemistry teacher, someone who knew chemistry backwards and inside out, they could guide me through to the right answer and teach me how to set up and work the problems. If I had an answer sheet, I could work through a problem on my own and at least compare my answer to the right answer. Without either, though, I just want to give up.
    It reminded me of how I felt while converting. Trying to figure out religious truth, I became so lost and confused, I just wanted to give up.
    There’s a sort of freedom I have now. When I read something, and start thinking about it, I have somewhere to go to, where I can check to see how close my answer is to the real answer. Otherwise, I end up thinking myself into a sort of desperate doubt. So I’m very thankful for the catechism, and the church fathers, and good theologians, and nihil obstats. 🙂

  5. Gregory,

    Great analogy! You are describing precisely what it means “to know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.” The best on your Chemistry homework. St. Albertus Magnus, pray for Gregory!

  6. Brent (1st comment)- I’d never heard the sola/solo phrase but that definitely seems right! I don’t think I’d have any faith if I were just handed a Bible… what a crazy document to someone reading it without guidance!

    Kayla- Thanks, you definitely should read all the Newman you possible can! His homilies — like the big collection from his years as an Anglican, entitled “Parochial and Plain Sermons” and published by Ignatius Press — are a great place to start.

    Ciska- I’m happy for you that you joined the Church! I know the conversion process can be really hard, intellectually and spiritually as well as on the family level. Hope the journey has been smooth for you.

    JC- Yes, thanks for the GKC bit! It is a huge comfort not to be totally on our own in the search for truth.

    Richard- Try “John Henry Newman: A Biography” by Ian Ker (Oxford University Press). A wonderful Catholic professor (whose class on Newman I took) says it’s the authoritative scholarly biography.

    Greg- Haha, it’s perfect! I studied English in college but I have fond memories of taking chem AP in high school. Trust in authority — whether chemistry teachers, popes, mapmakers, lawyers, or doctors — is particularly crucial for getting out of “desperate doubt,” but we really rely on similar trust in almost every area of daily life!

    Julie- Thanks, dearest!

  7. Gregory – As an editor of school books (and answers sheets), I urge you not to trust those too much, they’re not faultless! Luckily church doctrine is. 😉

    Anna – Thanks. Though my journey to the Catholic Church hasn’t been entirely smooth, I really can’t complain. Supporting friends and family, wonderful RCIA, great priest and parish … And my closest friend and her husband decided to convert too! I love being Catholic!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign up for our Newsletter

Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit