"Sola Scriptura Revisited: a reply to Steve Hays"

Fr. Al Kimel of Pontifications recently referred me to a blog where Steve Hays, one of five contributing Evangelical bloggers to a site called Triablogue, has posted a very long piece entitled "By Scripture alone" (Triablogue, December 31, 2006). As it turns out, the piece is intended as a rebuttal to a chapter I wrote for Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, edited by Robert Sungenis -- my chapter being the second in the volume, entitled "Philosophical and Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura."

Mr. Hays flatters me by devoting such a long and substantial post to my critique of sola scriptura. It has been nearly a decade since I wrote that piece, itself a lengthy chapter of some eighty pages. Since the appearance of Not By Bread Alone, the most substantial rebuttal mounted against it that I know of has been that of Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001). Although Mathison took specific aim at some of my arguments in his book, I did not respond for a couple of reasons. One reason was that, by the time the book came to my attention, a number of Catholics had already responded to Mathison, offering ample rebuttals to his arguments. Among the best of these is the superb review of Mathison's book by Gregory Krehbiel, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison: Reviewed chapter by chapter, with discussion" (June 2001), which, among other things, responded to his specific attacks on my arguments (although the link to the full followup discussion doesn't work anymore). Dave Armstrong also wrote a fine article reviewing Krehbiel's review in Greg Krehbiel's Review of Keith Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura (April 2004), itself a post well worth reading. Another two-part article by Armstrong relevant to the topic is "How Different (In Nature and Ultimate Effect) Are SolO Scriptura and SolA Scriptura (vs. Keith Mathison)" -- Part I and Part II.

The other reason I did not respond to Mathison was that I had lost some of my initial interest in these sorts of arguments. It often happens, I think, that arguments of this kind serve a purpose on the journey of those en route to the Catholic Church, but subsequent to their conversion these concerns are supplanted by others as they become habituated to their new environs within the Church. While this isn't always the case (witness the number of Catholic converts who become full-time apologists), I would submit that it is often the case. For example, Greg Krehbiel has apparently lost much of his former taste for apologetical writing, as can be seen from his rather skeptical article, posted the day after Christmas, "Top Ten Reasons Not to Argue" (Crowhill Weblog, Dec. 31, 2006). While not buying into the overt skepticism of Krehbiel's piece, which I take to be largely hyperbolic, I am nevertheless sympathetic to the disposition that animates it. Apologetic arguments can get very old, especially when they become rather timeworn and threadbare and all one really wants, while someone is badgering him about a certain verse in the Bible or a certain Church council of the fourth century, is a thirst-quenching draught of Guinness.

Having said that, I decided to respond to this article by Mr. Hays, for several reasons. First, I think the sorts of arguments he raises are fairly representative of contemporary Evangelical and Fundamentalist views of Catholicism. Second, I believe that these views continue to be based on some significant misunderstandings that need addressing. Thirdly, and lastly, the fact that Mr. Hays' criticisms are directed against my own arguments of nearly a decade ago offers me a chance to revisit these arguments to see what, if anything, I would change. These are not the sorts of arguments I am in the habit of dealing with these days. Personally, I do personally relish the challenge of this sort of debate in the way I once did; and, frankly, I have so many other fish to fry and and so little time to devote to this sort of agenda, that I do not anticipate addressing these issues again in the future. Nevertheless, for the rare and exceptional -- I'm almost tempted to say, "deviant" -- reader who enjoys this sort of debate, I offer my assurances that I have attempted to keep my responses to Mr. Hays courteous, constructive, and from being too perfunctory or insubstantial: I trust there will be some positive substance with which to reckon here. But please be forewarned: the post is extremely long. Wade into it only at your own risk. For most of you it will likely be inordinately tedious stuff. For anyone interested, however, the complete post can be found on my Scripture and Catholic Tradition Blog, "Sola Scriptura revisited: a reply to Steve Hays (in 95 antitheses)" (posted January 6, 2007).