Beyond "Sola Scriptura"

During my last trip to our nation's capital, I came across a charming (and tiny) little book at the National Basilica gift shop titled Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura by Joel Peters. I couldn't help buying it. Just some preliminary skimming and I was thoroughly impressed. What do we do in an incredibly post-sola scriptura world? What do we do beyond the light of Biblical inerrancy? I will attempt to conjecture a few points.

In our "postmodern" era (as if the modern era wasn't bad enough!) we are faced with the tenet of modernism which, in part, rejects the inerrancy (lack of error) in the Bible, as if it was just another book written by a bunch of humans. What has been accepted by the knowledge of faith, i.e., that God can not err in His revelation is now, as with everything else, questioned.

In Timothy, it is written that all Scripture is useful for teaching- not all-sufficient- but useful. When a Catholic needs further clarification or further teaching on a scriptural point, he or she turns to the teaching authority of the Church, from whence came the Bible itself and which has amassed the knowledge and doctrine of God's revelation- scriptural and extra-scriptural- throughout time. In this way, Catholics as a body have a "catholicity"- uniformity- of belief, unlike the diaspora and multitude of Protestant sects. What happens, then, if a Protestant sees the Bible as deficient, if a Catholic sees the Bible as deficient and errant or, worse, if a Catholic sees the Magisterium as bunk?

The usual recourse nowadays is to books written by a variety of authors with wildly varying beliefs (made possible by lack of imprimatur or nihil obstat) or even, particularly among more academic works, anti-Christian rhetoric. We live in an era of Christian self-help books. Unfortunately, more often than not, one begins with Christian self-helpers, then just plain self-helps, and then eventually one begins to believe that the Bible just isn't necessary, nor is "anybody else telling me what to think or do" (because I'm such a genius, God has spoken to me personally, and I'm the boss of me, &c.). Among Christian academics and students who often fallaciously reject biblical inerrancy and/or the religious teaching authority of the Church, I have noticed recourse to writers across the spectrum- from Rousseau to Kant and- far, far worse- Nietzsche (the self-proclaimed anti-Christ), Marx (an atheist Jew), Sartre (another atheist), &c. When I express concern about reading such works as a means to spiritual enrichment (depletion, really), I am simply told that it is good to read such authors to deepen in faith (by cultivating doubt, I may add).

Well, I confess I have read Rousseau, Kant, Nietzsche, and Marx- for academic means as I am a political scientist. I have very easily noticed their grave attacks on religion, in general, and have noticed the dangers of using such books too often for the purpose of one's spiritual pursuits.

If Christ gives us all things, why do we insist on asking for more? For the dissatisfied and faithless, behold, the descent of the modernists...


("The Descent of the Modernists", by E. J. Pace, first appearing in his book Christian Cartoons, published in 1922.)

Think you are stronger than that? Do not have so much faith in yourself as I once did. I nearly fell down the path before realizing my immense foolishness.