Sola Scriptura part II

 Geiselmann argued from this change that Trent did not deny that all saving truth is contained in the Scriptures. The truth of divine revelation is found not partly in Scripture while the remainder is found in the traditions (the draft formulation); it is all in Scripture. It is also all in the tradition. It could be argued therefore that the sola Scriptura principle, properly understood, is consistent with Trent.

[The view Geiselmann rejects has been the view of the major Roman apologists since Trent. For a brief account, see J. R. Geiselmann, “Scripture, Tradition, and the Church: An Ecumenical Problem,” in D. J. Callahan, H. A. Obermann, and D. J. O’Hanlon, eds., Christianity Divided (London: Sheed and Ward, 1962), 39–72 ]

In response to Geiselmann’s position, however, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has argued that “as a Catholic theologian, [Geiselmann] has to hold fast to Catholic dogmas as such, but none of them is to be had sola Scriptura, neither the great dogmas of Christian antiquity, of what was once the consensus quinquesaecularis,[The term consensus quinquesaecularis refers to a theory that the church was marked by unity and doctrinal purity until the year 500.] nor, even less, the new ones of 1854 and 1950. In that case, however, what sense is there in talking about the sufficiency of scripture?” 

What is becoming clearer than ever, however, is that the principle of sola Scriptura remains a watershed. As Cardinal Ratzinger as much as admitted in his reaction to Geiselmann, there are major Roman doctrines that simply cannot be found in the Scriptures. In this sense, Scripture alone cannot be regarded as sufficient for the life of the church.

Having said this, however, it is now clearer than ever (pace Geiselmann) that the Roman Catholic Church cannot and will not subscribe to sola Scriptura. It must deny the sole sufficiency of the Bible. And, as the Reformers recognized, so long as Rome appeals to two sources, or even tributaries, of revelation, the contents of Scripture and the substance of its own tradition, it is inevitable that it will also withstand the message of Scripture and of the Reformation: sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide. 

Sinclair B. Ferguson, “Chapter Six: Scripture and Tradition,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 107–109. 

It would be hard to find a better illustration of the new approach to the Bible in Roman Catholicism than the recent widely acclaimed commentary on Romans by Joseph A. Fitzmyer. Professor Fitzmyer is a leading Roman Catholic scholar whose outstanding academic gifts pervade his almost 800-page commentary. While it is often true in the matter of commentaries that “one man’s meat is another man’s poison,” it is impossible to imagine any student of Scripture failing to find considerable profit from the erudition and stimulus of Fitzmyer’s work. 

Raymond E. Brown, the outstanding American Catholic Johannine scholar, describes Fitzmyer as “the most learned N[ew] T[estament] scholar on the American Catholic scene.” Elsewhere he says of Fitzmyer’s work on Romans that “It can lay fair claim to being the best commentary on Romans in English.”3 Even those who might award the palm to someone other than Fitzmyer recognize the value of the commendation.

But it is precisely because of the quality of this commentary that its contents are so significant. A desire for careful exegesis coupled with faithfulness to the Magisterium of the church leads Fitzmyer (a Jesuit) to state, albeit with appropriate sensitivity and discretion, that the teaching of the Scriptures cannot simpliciter (“directly”) be identified with the teachings of the sacred tradition. The following illustrations will underline this.

In an extensive introductory chapter on Pauline theology, Fitzmyer includes an essay on faith. In the developed theology of the medieval period, theologians had spoken and written much of fides caritate formata, justifying faith that was “faith formed by love.” This, not “faith alone,” justifies, they said. This view was confirmed at the Council of Trent.

Many of the statements from Trent reveal misunderstandings of the teaching of Luther and the other Reformers; nevertheless, its teaching in this regard is clearly intended as a rejection of the principles the Reformers regarded as central to the gospel. 

Trent’s Decree on Justification reads as follows: “If anyone says that people are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness (justitia) of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured into their hearts through the Holy Spirit and inheres in them; or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favour of God, let him be anathema.”

Rome’s great fear has always been that sola fide would breed antinomianism and moral license. Christians, it was held, were preserved from this by the fact that justification takes place through faith that is formed by love; i.e., justification involves personal transformation. But, comments Fitzmyer, Paul’s notion of faith that “blossoms” in love is to be distinguished from this fides caritate formata:

  That is a philosophical transposition of the Pauline teaching—acceptable or not depending on whether one agrees with the philosophy involved—but the genuine Pauline idea of “faith working itself out through love” is implicit in Romans … he does not equate faith with love; nor does he ascribe to love what he does to faith (viz., justification, salvation), even though he recognizes the necessity of the two working in tandem.

Here is an important recognition of the fact that we must distinguish between what the tradition has said and what the Scriptures actually affirm. The idea of faith and love being instrumental in justification cannot be read out of the text as such. It is no part of the exegesis of Paul’s words.

Note, however, that Fitzmyer is careful to suggest only that there is distance between what is affirmed by Paul and what is stated in the tradition. He does not affirm that there is any necessary contradiction between Scripture and tradition.

Commenting on a central passage regarding the justification controversy, Romans 3:21–26, Fitzmyer states that Paul formulates “three, or possibly four, effects of the Christ-event [i.e., the work of Christ] …: justification, redemption, expiation, and possibly pardon,” and adds, 

“It is important to recognize that such effects of the Christ-event are appropriated through faith in Christ Jesus, and only through faith. It is the means whereby human beings experience what Christ has done.”

Here again the Pauline text is to be read on its own terms without recourse to post-Pauline developments in the church. Fitzmyer knows that within the church there have always been those who have read Paul’s words as implying the principle of sola fide.

Sinclair B. Ferguson, “Chapter Six: Scripture and Tradition,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 96–98.

In these verses the theme of the revelation of God’s uprightness is developed, as Paul treats of (1) its relation to the Mosaic law (Rom. 3:21); (2) its universal destination (Rom. 3:22); (3) its necessity (Rom.3:23); (4) its nature and gratuity (Rom. 3:24a); (5) its mode of revelation (Rom. 3:24b–25); (6) its finality (Rom. 3:25b–26); and (7) its consequences (Rom. 3:27–31). 

Three, or possibly four, effects of the Christ-event are now formulated in these verses: justification, redemption, expiation, and possibly pardon.

 It is important to recognize that such effects of the Christ-event are appropriated through faith in Christ Jesus, and only through faith. It is the means whereby human beings experience what Christ has done for all of them.

(Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 342.)

 Commenting on the words “justified freely by His grace” in Romans 3:24, Fitzmyer notes: “It should be superfluous to stress … that in using dorean and te autou chariti, Paul is not referring to the efficient cause of justification by the former and the formal cause by the latter (as if charis were ‘sanctifying grace’). That is anachronistic exegesis, a distinction born of later medieval and Tridentine [Council of Trent] theology.”

Here again, without rejecting the teaching of Trent as such, a distinction is made between what the text itself states and the theology that has developed within the Catholic tradition.

Sinclair B. Ferguson, “Chapter Six: Scripture and Tradition,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 99. 

 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Romans 3:28

That emphasis and the qualification “apart from deeds of (the) law” show that in this context Paul means “by faith alone.” 

Only faith appropriates God’s effective declaration of uprightness for a human being. These words repeat what Paul already said in Romans 3:20

Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 363.

At Rom.3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522),We therefore hold that a man is justified without works of the law, but by faith alone. Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501–3):

Now he manifested himself through faith, by which alone it is given to see God.

Pope Clement I et al., The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Kirsopp Lake, vol. 2, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913), 367.

and therefore we who by his will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not made righteous by ourselves, or by our wisdom or understanding or piety or the deeds which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which Almighty God has justified all men from the beginning of the world; to him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Pope Clement I et al., The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Kirsopp Lake, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913), 63.

“Where then is your boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? That of works? No, but through the law of faith. For we hold that a man is justified through faith without works of law.” He is saying that the justification of faith alone suffices, so that the one who only believes is justified, even if he has not accomplished a single work

Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1–5, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, vol. 103, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 226.

It disturbed the scribes that sin was forgiven by a man (for they considered that Jesus Christ was only a man) and that he forgave sin, for which the Law was not able to grant absolution, since faith alone justifies.

Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, ed. David G. Hunter, trans. D. H. Williams, vol. 125, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 100–101.

    Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam iustificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.( Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12–13 (PG 124.988).)

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114–18):

    Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20–24).

    Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” 

(Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Rom.4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Gal.2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

    See further:

    Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

    Marius Victorinus, In ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad Gal.2.15–16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli ad Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad Gal.2:15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

    Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84–85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not a dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”).

The phrase occurs also in the writings of Pelagius, Expositio in ep. ad Romanos 3:28 (ed. A. Souter, 34 [PL 30.663B–C, 692D; PLSup 1.1129]), who argues against sola fides, but his argument shows that the phrase was already current.(Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 360–361.)

Luther insisted that justifying righteousness was iustitia aliena Christi, an ‘alien righteousness of Christ’—a righteousness which was extrinsic to the believer, covering him protectively in much the same way as a mother hen might cover her chicks with her wing. Substantially the same position was taken up by both Lutheran and Reformed theologians, who held that justifying righteousness is not a righteousness inherent to the individual, but one outside him. 

God effects our justification from outside us, prior to effecting our renewal within us. The righteousness of justification was perfect and imputed, whereas that of sanctification was imperfect and inherent. The point which the Reformers wished to emphasize was that the righteousness of the saints was permanently imperfect, and therefore could not function as the basis of the divine verdict of justification. We are accepted on the basis of a perfect righteousness—the righteousness of Christ.

The Council of Trent, however, meeting in 1546–7 to formulate the Roman Catholic response to the Reformation doctrines of justification, insisted that the single formal cause of justification was an inherent righteousness, a righteousness within the believer. Although stressing that this righteousness was provided by God, Trent equally insisted that it was located within the believer as part of his person. 

The Reformers found this idea inconsistent: if God’s verdict of justification was not to be a legal fiction, it would have to be based upon a perfect righteousness—and if this righteousness was inherent to the believer, how could Trent speak of a believer growing in righteousness when he already possessed a perfect righteousness? It seemed to the Reformers that any inherent righteousness was, by its very nature, imperfect and in need of supplementation—and the imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ dealt with this difficulty.

For the Reformers, it was necessary to know that one was a Christian, that the Christian life had indeed begun, that one had been forgiven and accepted by God—and on the basis of this conviction, the living of the Christian life, with all its opportunities, responsibilities and challenges, could proceed. Being justified on the basis of the external righteousness of Christ meant that all that needed to be done for an individual’s justification had been done by God—and so the believer could rest assured that he had been accepted and forgiven. 

The Reformers could not see how Trent ensured that the individual was accepted, despite being a sinner. For if the believer possessed the perfect righteousness which ensured his justification, he could no longer be a sinner—and yet experience (as well as the penitential system of the Catholic church!) suggested that believers continually sinned. For the Reformers, the Tridentine doctrine of justification was profoundly inadequate, in that it could not account for the fact that the believer was really accepted before God while still remaining a sinner. 

The Reformers were convinced that Trent taught a profoundly inadequate doctrine of justification as a result. The famous phrase, due to Luther, sums up this precious insight with brilliance and verbal economy: simul iustus et peccator, ‘righteous and a sinner at one and the same time’. Luther is one of the few theologians ever to have grasped and articulated the simple fact that God loves and accepts us just as we are—not as we might be, or will be, but as he finds us.

As the Tridentine debates on justification make clear, Trent recognized exactly what Protestant theologians were saying on this matter—and explicitly rejected it. Although a number of theologians present at Trent clearly sympathized with the Protestant position, they were outnumbered and outmanoeuvered by their colleagues. This was no misunderstanding, but a deliberate, weighed and explicit rejection of the Protestant position.(Alister McGrath, “Justification: The New Ecumenical Debate,” Themelios 13, no. 2 (1988): 44–45.)

 Writing in The Christian Graduate (December, 1956), on “Some Aspects of the Reformed Doctrine of Holy Scripture,” the Rev. H. M. Carson emphasizes that “linked closely to the objective fact of the sufficiency of Holy Scriptures there is the allied doctrine of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.” This means that “our acceptance of the sufficiency of Scripture is not merely a mental assent, but is a spiritual response to the inner testimony of the Spirit, who brought the Scriptures into being, and who still interprets them to the people of God.” 

The Christian who adheres firmly to the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture can, he asserts, “be assured that he stands in a noble succession”—a succession which reaches back to the early church and to Christ Himself. It is, moreover, a doctrine that has been prominent “at all periods of spiritual awakening in the life of the church.” We, too, for our part, are convinced that, if there is to be a true spiritual awakening in our own day, it will not be apart from the recognition of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture as the Word of God.

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, “Review of Current Religious Thought,” Christianity Today (Washington, D.C.: Christianity Today, 1957), 39.