That’s a term I came across researching the issue of Sola Scriptura, a Christian doctrine restored to the church as a result of the Protestant Reformation. It appeared in this article by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, in which he summarized some of the main points made during a debate with the Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid. The straw men presented here are typically seen an most debates between Protestant and Catholic apologists.

Straw Man Number One: Misrepresent the issue(s). In this case we are talking about Patrick Madred misrepresenting what Sola Scriptura actually means.

Straw Man Number Two: Misrepresent the opponent’s point/argument. In this case Patrick Madrid misrepresents James White’s position concerning 2 Timothy 3:16-18 and the passage’s presentation of a case for Sola Scriptura.

Following is a direct excerpt that appeared in the beginning of the above referenced article (and the actual debate), in which Dr. White explains exactly what Sola Scriptura does not mean and what it does mean.

What the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or, in fact, in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition: The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self- authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

This explanation by Dr. White of what Sola Scriptura does not mean was quite useful to this blogger because it told me why conversations I have had and/or observed seemed to go in endless circles. Opposing parties in the debate often argue from different perspectives. I hope you find this information useful.

As for SM#2 and 2 Timothy 3:16-18, well, that’s another blog post.