The problem with Bible Alone theory

I was going to answer point by point Marti Abernathy's comment on my post Jesus, Abortion and Homosexuality, but I decided not to.

It would take me a fairly good-sized essay to address every objection, and as St. Thomas Aquinas says, it takes longer to raise objections than to answer them.

Marti is operating from the the theory of that the Bible alone can interpret itself, without any outside authority, thereby giving readers a sure-fire means to know God's Revelation.

The history of Judaism and the early Church shows that "Bible Alone" theory was not accepted in the Church. Of course the Bible is a source of Revalation. But it was never assumed that the Bible was meant to be interpreted without authoritative guidance from the Church. There is not one shred of evidence in Early Church History that Christians believed in the Sola Scriptura. They believed in the Bible. They believed in reading the Bible. They never believed in interpreting the Bible individually apart from the Church.

Judaism believes in Oral Tradition-- a rough equivalent to Catholicism's Sacred Tradition. Oral Tradition is the unwritten Revelation that God gave the Jewish people, so that they would have details on how to sacrifice, how to interpret the Law, and so on.

If Judaism had this Oral Tradition, it's natural that the Early Church would have its own oral tradition as well.

Texts do not interpret themselves. A text is not a live thing. The meanings of words can evolve. The change of the environment and the cultures of the Church can make what was once evident seem obscure. Besides, the contemporary context can seek to impose an interpretation that would have run completely contrary to the mind of the original Church.

This is why there needs to be human agent to be an arbiter, a final Supreme Court if you will, of Church Revelation.

If there is ever any major doubt or controversy over a point of faith, there needs to be someone live to turn to. As I said: texts do not interpret themselves. Texts are dead things.

You might object: why can't the individual, filled with the Holy Spirit, be the final arbiter?

Because two people can err in good will; two people can both believe to be filled with the Holy Spirit, but FEELING one has the Holy Spirit is no guarantee one has it.

Why should we trust other humans, who may also err in good will?

Here's the catch: because God willed that his Church never err.

When God promised that the Gates of Hell would never prevail (Matthew 16:16-19), he not only meant that the Church would exist until the end times, but that error would never prevail in the Church. Satan is the father of lies, and the lies that Satan is most desperate to spread are those about God. Jesus also said to Peter "What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven". Would God allow an untruth to be binding in heaven? No. He would give the means to the Church to make sure that it would never teach error when it solemnly makes a declaration on doctrine.

Protestantism does not have a theological pedigree in the early Church. When you read of St. Ignatius, St. Cyprian, or St. Augustine, you cannot possibly relate the beliefs of these writers to the likes of Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggart. Where are their bishops? Where are their sacraments? Where is their devotion to Mary?

Evangelical Protestants simply did not exist in the first three centuries.

Prooftexting only goes so far. For every line you can find in the Bible supporting one idea, you can extract another to support the contrary one, especially, if you argue outside of any kind of Tradition.

That's why the Early Church met in Councils to come to the Truth authoritatively so that all the faithful could believe the truth on points of controversy.

You do not see the Early Church reflected in today's Evangelical community. Their concept of the Early Church is highly mythologized, without any reference to actualy Early Church people, writings, communities and so forth.

Quite simply because there were none.

So bringing up a whole bunch of personal interpretations of the Bible really doesn't cut it with Catholics.

That's why none of Marti's objections really make sense to me.