Reading through Stephen K. Ray’s Crossing the Tiber has shown the importance of being able to accurately define what sola Scriptura is.  Ray’s conversion to Roman Catholicism began when

I discovered that sola Scriptura was weak, unbiblical, unhistorical, and untenable.  Sola Scriptura left the entire structure [of Protestantism] unsound and flawed at the very base, like a house built on sand, and yet it was the bedrock of Protestant theologies (Ray, Stephen K. Crossing the Tiber, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997; (p. 29)).

Unfortunately, sola Scriptura is no longer the “bedrock of Protestant theologies.”  In fact, this can be demonstrated by Ray’s own list of things that he did not find in Scripture:

Here are a few words and practices added or developed by Protestants that are not found in the Bible: “age of accountability”, “total depravity of man”, “ask Jesus into your heart” (can you recall Paul emphasizing this concept?), the “Rapture” (from a prophetic revelation in Scotland in the nineteenth century), “clothed in the righteousness of Christ” (a phrase never found in the New Testament, cf. Rev 19:8), “invisible Church”, emphasis on a “personal relationship with Christ”, “accepting Christ as personal Lord and Savior”, “enthroning the Bible in your heart” (Halley’s Bible Handbook), limited atonement, the “altar call”, rededication, tent revivals, inerrancy, eternal security, denominations, “folding hands” to pray, faith alone, sola Scriptura, devotions, missionaries, full-time ministry, seminaries, church buildings (New Testament worship was in private homes, e.g., Rom 16:5; Col 4:15) with the building referred to as a “church”, baptism and the Eucharist as mere symbols, Sunday school, the Christian flag (on most Protestant platforms), and many, many more (ibid. p. 43, in footnote 58).

Now despite the fact that there are several things on this list that actually are in Scripture, the above list should more than solidify the fact for Ray that the modern Protestant movement that he is criticizing is anything but engaged in sola Scriptura!  What Ray is criticizing here is not the practice of sola Scriptura, but instead the extrabiblical addition of traditions–something that classical Reformed Protestants (such as myself) also criticize!  Thus, Ray’s argument against sola Scriptura here is actually an argument for sola Scriptura.

So just what is the doctrine of sola Scriptura?  In a summary, we can say sola Scriptura is the affirmation that: “Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for doctrine and morals for the Christian.”  I emphasized the word “infallible” because sola Scriptura does not deny that there are other rules of faith; it only denies that those other rules of faith are “infallible.”

By way of example, I am a Presbyterian in a PCA church.  We hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF).  The WCF is not infallible, but it is a rule of faith for Presbyterians.  Presbyterians agree with the WCF insofar as it reflects the teachings of Scripture.  If we ever find that something in the WCF does not adhere to Scripture, then Scripture trumps the authority of the WCF.  This is why it is not infallible although it remains a rule of faith.

Along a similar vein, I would also argue that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is also a rule of faith.  It, too, is not infallible though (contrary to what Catholics teach).  Thus, when Scripture and the CCC contradict each other (as they do in points), Scripture trumps the CCC.

Scripture, therefore, becomes the final authority for the Christian.  The Church is composed of individuals who are fallible.  Even Roman Catholics will agree that the popes are not impeccible.  Scripture, however, is both infallible and impeccible.  We can therefore use it as our final authority and judgment.

Thus, when we look at Protestant traditions (and Ray is correct in pointing out that Protestants have just as many traditions as Catholics do), we weigh them by whether they adhere to the infallible Scriptures.  If they do not, we ought to jettison them.  If they do, then we are safe in practicing those traditions.  The same thing can be said of Roman Catholic traditions too.  Insofar as a Catholic tradition is consistent with Scripture, we are safe in practicing that tradition.  But if a Catholic tradition goes against Scripture (something that Catholics do not claim, but which Protestants do) then Scripture trumps the tradition.

I will be looking over some more of Ray’s arguments later on this blog.