Mecca – The city where Tawheed was invented
In debating with Protestants, a doctrine that usually comes up is Sola Scriptura, aka Scripture alone. In debating with Muslims the concept of Tawheed vs Trinitarianism comes up. For those who don’t know, Tawheed is the word for Islamic Unitarianism. As a Catholic, I believe both Sola Scriptura and Tawheed to be false doctrines and ironically their apologists make the same logical flaw in defending them.
Remember, that whenever we bring up a proof text for something, we need to be careful that this text says everything that we want it to say. We can’t make half and argument and try to draw a full conclusion.
Starting with Sola Scriptura, we often hear Protestants point to verses that show the authority of Scripture. Here are some of the ones that are used:
Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
– 1 Corinthians 4:6
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
– 2 Timothy 3:16-17
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
– Hebrews 4:12
Well there you have it. Sola Scriptura is clearly demostrated for all to see. It’s so obvious, isn’t it? Not quite. All these verses say is that Scripture is authoritative. No Catholic on the planet would deny that Scripture is authoritative. Does Scripture being authoritative prove or demand Sola Scriptura? Not in the slightest. That’s asking for far more than these verses prove.
The same principle falsifies Tawheed. The Muslims will quote any verse that they can get their hand on to show that there is one God. Here are some that are used:
Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.
– Deuteronomy 4:39
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
– Deuteronomy 6:4
“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
– Isaiah 43:10
These verses are pretty clear that there is only one God. The doctrine of Tawheed must be true and Trinitarianism must be false, right? Again, no. Proving one God doesn’t prove Tawheed or falsify Trinitarianism.
After all the first verse in the Nicene Creed says:
Credo in unum Deum
This translates to:
I believe in one God.
Proving monotheism doesn’t prove Tawheed.
To make a long story short, Scripture is authoritative and there is only one God. Those who defend Sola Scriptura and Tawheed make the mistake of wanting these verses to prove more than they do. I invite all of my readers who embrace either one of these two doctrines and become Catholic. Unless of course, you can prove either of these doctrines with Scripture.
That’s a nice point about Scripture being authoritative rather than the only and sufficient authority. Something I would like to add to is that what is quoted is advice from St Paul, it is not anything that Jesus Christ is recorded to have said. (It exasperates me somewhat when certain Protestants quote Paul as though he is an authority that must be followed, rather than a wise and learned counsellor.)
Hi Christopher,
Do you not accept St. Paul as an authority? Remember, it was Christ Himself who commissioned St. Paul as an apostle and that is where he gets his authority.
God Bless Christopher,
Allan
St Paul is indeed an authority, and an outstanding one. I have no wish to denigrate or discount his teachings and I hope I have not come across as having that opinion. His understanding and his views are to be taken seriously, but we need to bear in mind that some of them are indeed views. Please note that I added “that [who] must be followed” the accent being on the word “must”.
It is the teachings and example of Christ that we must follow. Listening to some people (usually Protestants in my experience) it sounds like they are better described as followers of St Paul which is why I made the observation that I did.
1. No one really knows where the doctrine of Tawheed was invented. Mecca is just a possibility.
2. As Sam Shamoun and Nabeel Qureshi effectively demonstrated, Islamic Unitarianism practically doesn’t exist, at least not in Sunni Islam, the main version of Islam.
3. I would disagree that 1 Corinthians 4:6 and Hebrews 4:12 refer only to Scripture. “Do not go beyond what is written” should go along with 1 Timothy 3:15 “…The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” It is WRITTEN that the Church is the house of God and pillar and ground of the truth, so one cannot discard the authority of the Church simply because s/he “feels” that the Bible is the only infallible authority out there. “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword…”- indeed it is, but who says that “word of God” is only the Bible? What about Church tradition, preserved by the “Pillar and ground of truth”?
4. Trent Horn provides good refutations to most of the passages, used by Protestants to defend Sola Scriptura in his book “The Case For Catholicism”, a good read, in my opinion.
5. If the Bible is “the only infallible authority” for true believers, why are there such tremendous disagreements among different branches of Protestantism? Did Christ die for all of us (Arminians), or just for “the elect” (Calvinists)? Can a Christian lose their salvation (Lutherans) or is this impossible (Calvinists again)? Theoretically only one denomination could be right, which means the rest are wrong, which means they are not following the Bible, but their traditions of understanding the Bible, which means that the vast majority of Protestants are not really adhering Sola Scriptura, but to their own traditions. Conclusion- the Reformation failed even according to Protestant standards. Ouch!
6. Saying that the Bible is in and of itself sufficient rule of faith is like saying that sword is in and of itself sufficient to cut the head of a rabid dog. It is, but you need a hand to hold the grip and to swing the weapon. A gun won’t fire by itself, someone has to pull the trigger. The Bible is a sword, but the Church is the hand that swings the sword in the right directions. Without a firm hand to wield it, the sword is either useless or dangerous. You cannot have infallible Bible and right understanding of the Bible at the same time. Not without the Church.
7. When our Protestant friends say that Bible is the only infallible rule of faith, do they mean the Bible as a whole or only certain parts of it? For example, the Nestle-Aland 28th edition of the Greek New Testament- the one used as “the best” New Testament by most Protestant scholars today- contains readings that were not at the disposal of Luther, Calvin and rest of the “reformers”. 2 Peter 3:10 in NA reads “and the Earth shall not be found”,a reading that does not exist in a single Greek manuscript of the New Testament. In the Bibles, used by the reformers, it was more like “and the Earth shall be burned up”. Only one of the readings is inspired, therefore inerrant, but which is it? I can provide other examples of this kind. The bitter irony is that at the time when Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the others were boldly proclaiming that only the Bible is inerrant, an inerrant Bible simply did not exist (according to the Protestant standard “Only the autographs are infallible”).
Hi Orangehunter,
Glad that you liked the post. You gave some arguments against Sola Scriptura and you are correct. This doctrine has numerous problems that we can’t even scrape the surface on here. I like your sword analogy.
You mentioned that Trent Horn has refuted these passages. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have trouble dealing with these passages. I’m just saying that these ones are the ones that they bring up. It’s true what you say about Hebrews 4:12. We can’t be sure if its referring to Scripture. I actually think it is, but you’re correct, Protestants assume it without proving it.
God Bless,
Allan
1. “Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have trouble dealing with these passages.”- I didn’t say you have, in fact you dealt with the verses by pointing out that they say the Bible is authoritative, not that ONLY the Bible is authoritative.
2. Coincidence or not, but Sam Shamoun has just posted articles in defense of Sola Scriptura. I don’t think he provides anything that hasn’t already been refuted:
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/10/an-articulation-of-sola-scriptura/
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/10/an-articulation-of-sola-scriptura-pt-2/
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/10/an-articulation-of-sola-scriptura-appendices/
3. I consider Sola Scriptura to be the Achilles’ heel of Protestantism. Wthout this doctrine Protestantism cannot sustain itself. Ironically, of the five “Solas” it’s the easiest to refute. As I’ve already noted, Protestants don’t really follow Sola Scriptura. Intentionally or not, the first reformers have devised traditions of their own, replacing the only legitimate tradition of Christianity- the one of the holy Church.
4. James White (who has a book on this subject) uses a very interesting argument against critics of Sola Scriptura: when someone states “The canon is unthinkable without the role of the Church”, he smiles and asks “Is that so? What about the Old Testament canon? The Church didn’t exist when it was already formed, and we know it was because in the New Testament Jesus clearly holds the Jews accountable to what is written in the Scriptures. He wouldn’t chastise them for breaking the Scriptures if they (the Jews) didn’t hold these Scriptures as sacred and authoritative, would He?”
I’ve come up with a response to this argument, but I’ll be glad to know what you think about it, if you don’t mind.
Here is a 3 part article I wrote on sola scriptura years ago that I really want Allan, Christopher and Orange to critique, if you guys don’t mind:
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/10/an-articulation-of-sola-scriptura/
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/10/an-articulation-of-sola-scriptura-pt-2/
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/10/an-articulation-of-sola-scriptura-appendices/
Hi Sam,
Thanks for sharing. Orangehunter actually already seems familiar with them as he mentioned them in his response, though you wouldn’t have seen it since I approved both of your comments at the same time. He and Christopher are welcome to answer.
I may answer in time. I’ve got my next six or so posts planned out and am going to start working on my new one tonight. It’s actually nothing to do with Protestantism or Islam.
Protestantism isn’t the number one focus of this blog, but I do deal with it from time to time. I will look at those articles on your site and see though. Thanks again for the links.
God Bless,
Allan
Sam,
There’s a great deal to read here and I need to take time and care over it before commenting. I appreciate your contribution.
Sam, I don’t need to critique your articles in their entirety, because I agree with most of the things you wrote about the Bible. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I do believe that the Bible is the flawless and inerrant word of our blessed God. What I reject is the notion of Bible being the “sole, infallible rule of faith”. Why? Well, let’s see:
1. “The Bible is the only certain norm, since it is the only revelation that can be demonstrated to have come from inspired men of God. This cannot be said of oral traditions.”- this is pretty self-refuting, given that most of the New Testament was circulating in oral form before being inscripturated. Besides, who exactly decided that only the Bible can be traced back to divinely inspired men? What about the revelations to Noah, St. Abraham, etc.? Holy Scripture did not exist until St. Moses. Does this mean that before him revelations from God did not exist?
2. I agree with some of your responses to criticism of Sola Scriptura (for example, I agree that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 refers to both Testaments), but most of your rebuttals deal with misunderstandings of Sola Scriptura. You can see my objections to this doctrine in my previous two posts. None of them are tackled in your articles on SS.
3. What good does it do to say the Bible is “the only infallible rule of faith”, since human understanding of Scripture is by definition fallible? Check the sword analogy in my first comment.
4. Most of the passages, used in support of Sola Scriptura have already been addressed, one example is the previously mentioned book “The Case For Catholicism” by Trent Horn. It contains detailed examination of the many verses that are often used to defend SS.
5. Your explanation of how the canon was defined and settled does not obviate the obvious problem of the different canons that still exist. How do you know that the Ethiopian Church isn’t the only one that recognized the exact number and identity of the true canonical books? “God made sure to guide his people in such a manner as to discover his list of inspired books in order to insure that the Church had all of those very divine Scriptures necessary to equip the man of God for every good work that God requires.”- this does not refute the claim that it was the Church that settled the issue of the canon. The Church is comprised of “God’s people”, in this case the distinction between the two is completely artificial.
6. I’m not sure what is the Church to you. What is her role and purpose? Has she ceased to exist between 5th century AD and 15th century AD? St. Paul said that “Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.” Christ Himself stated in Matthew 16:18 “…On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” As St. Irenaeus puts it: “The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.”