Posted on 08/14/2002 9:53:41 AM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
There are two main issues that divide Protestant Catholics from Roman Catholics. Both groups claim to be catholic, that is, part of the apostolic, universal church of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics believe we Protestants departed from that church in the sixteenth century. Protestant Catholics believe they departed earlier.
The theme of this opening chapter is one of the issues that still divides us: the source of religious truth for the people of God. (The other main issue, that of how a man is made right with God, has been dealt with in the book Justification by Faith ALONE!, published by Soli Deo Gloria in 1995.) As Protestants we maintain that the Scripture alone is our authority. Our Roman opponents maintain that the Scripture by itself is insufficient as the authority of the people of God, and that tradition and the teaching authority of the church must be added to the Scripture.
This is a solemn topic. This is no time for games. We must be searching for the truth. God has declared that whoever adds to or takes away from His Word is subject to His curse. The Roman church has declared that we Protestants are accursed (“anathematized”) for taking away the Word of God as found in tradition. We Protestants have declared that the Roman church is a false church for adding human traditions to the Word of God. Despite sincere debates by fine apologists over the course of nearly 500 years, the differences remain basically as they were in the sixteenth century. I will not say much new here, but we must continue to pursue the truth.
In spite of the difficulty of this undertaking, I am eager to join that historic train of Protestant apologists to defend the doctrine that the Scripture alone is our ultimate religious authority. I believe that it can be shown that this position is the clear position of Scripture itself. And I hope that, by the grace of God, those committed to the Roman doctrine of tradition will come to see the tragic error of denigrating the sufficiency and perspicuity of God’s own inspired Word.
Let me begin with certain clarifications so as not to be misunderstood. I am not arguing that all truth is to be found in the Bible, or that the Bible is the only form in which the truth of God has come to His people. I am not arguing that every verse in the Bible is equally clear to every reader. Nor am I arguing that the church — both the people of God and the ministerial office — is not of great value and help in understanding the Scripture. As William Whitaker stated in his noble work: “For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men.”1
The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand.
The position I am defending certainly is what is taught in the Bible itself. For example, Deuteronomy 31:9 states: “Moses wrote down this law. . . .” Moses instructed the people by writing down the law and then ordering that it be read to them “so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law,” Deuteronomy 31:9, 12.
Moses declared to all Israel: “Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life,” Deuteronomy 32:46, 47.
Notice the clear elements in these passages:
The Word of which Moses spoke was written. The people can and must listen to it and learn it. In this Word they can find life. The people do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word. The priests, prophets, and scribes of Israel certainly function to help the people ministerially. But the Word alone was sufficient for salvation. The prophets, who were indeed inspired, came very much in the spirit of Micah who said, “He has shown you, O man, what is good,” Micah 6:8. The function of the prophets and priests was not to add to or even clarify the law; rather, they applied it to the people who were sinfully indifferent.
If this principle of the sufficiency and clarity of the Word is true in the Old Testament, we can assume that it is all the more true in the New. The New Testament gloriously fulfills what the Old Testament promises. But we do not have to assume it; rather, the New Testament makes clear that the character of Scripture is to be sufficient and clear. One example of that is found in 2 Timothy 3, 4. Here Paul writes to his younger brother in the faith, Timothy. He writes that Timothy — who was instructed in the faith by his mother and grandmother — has also learned all about Paul’s teaching (3:10). Timothy has been mightily helped by all sorts of oral teaching, some of it apostolic. Yet Paul writes these words to Timothy:
And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy 3:12; 4:5)
You see, Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15). He teaches that the Scriptures are useful for teaching, reproof (rebuking), correcting, and training in righteousness (3:16). Because the Scriptures have this character, they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (3:17). So Paul tells Timothy that he must preach this Word, even though the time is coming when people will not want to hear it, but rather will want teachers to suit their fancy, who will instruct them in myths rather than the truth of the Word (4:1-4).
The force and clarity of the Apostle’s teaching here are striking. In spite of the rich oral teaching Timothy had, he is to preach the Scriptures because those Scriptures give him clearly all that he needs for wisdom and preparation to instruct the people of God in faith and all good works. The Scripture makes him wise for salvation, and equips him with everything he needs for doing every good work required of the preacher of God. The sufficiency and clarity of the Word are taught in this one section of Scripture over and over again. John Chrysostom paraphrased the meaning of Paul’s words to Timothy this way: “You have Scripture for a master instead of me; from there you can learn whatever you would know.”2
I have listened to several taped debates on this topic. Often Protestant apologists have cited 2 Timothy 3 against Roman opponents. The usual response of Catholic apologists is to repeatedly assert that 2 Timothy 3 does not teach sufficiency. Sometimes they will refer to James 1:4, Matthew 19:21, or Colossians 1:28 and 4:12 as parallel texts, claiming that the word “complete” in 2 Timothy 3:17 does not mean sufficient. But such passages are not parallel; a completely different Greek word is used. Where 2 Timothy 3:17 uses exartizo, which has to do with being fitted for a task, these other passages use the Greek word teleios, which has reference to maturity or having reached a desired end.
Repeated assertions do not prove a point; that is only a propaganda technique. Our opponents need to answer in a responsible, thorough way.
The confidence that Paul had in the Scriptures, and which he taught Timothy, was clearly understood by the great church father, Augustine. In his treatise to prepare leaders of the church in an understanding of the Bible (0n Christian Doctrine), Augustine wrote: “Among those things which are said openly in Scripture are to be found all those teachings which involve faith, the mores of living, and that hope and charity which we have discussed.”3
We should not be surprised that the Apostle Paul, the Old Testament, and the greatest teacher of the ancient church held to the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture. It is the position that Jesus took in one of the most important moments of his life. At the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus faced the focused temptation of the devil in the wilderness. He faced the temptation as the Son of God, but also as the second Adam and the true Israel. And how did He face that temptation? He did not appeal to the oral tradition of Israel; He did not appeal to the authority of the rabbis or Sanhedrin; He did not even appeal to His own divinity or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Our Savior, in the face of temptation, turned again and again and again to the Scriptures. “It is written,” He said.
The Scriptures made Him wise; they equipped Him for every good work. They were clear, as He implied that even the evil one knew. When the devil quoted the Scripture, Jesus did not turn to some other authority. Rather Jesus said, “It is also written.”
When the evil one or his representatives misuse the Bible, or imply that it is unclear, Jesus teaches us that we must look more deeply into the written Word, not away from it.
Roman apologists will attempt to convince us that these texts of Scripture do not mean what they clearly say. Let me anticipate some of their arguments and prepare you for some of the ways they tend to respond.
1. The Word of God. First, they will try to say that the phrase “the Word of God” can mean more than just the Bible. I have already granted that. The question before us is whether today anything other than the Scriptures is necessary to know the truth of God for salvation. The Scripture texts I have cited show that nothing else is needed. Our opponents need to show not that Paul referred to his preaching as well as his writing as the Word of God — I grant that; they need to show that Paul taught that the oral teaching of the apostles would be needed to supplement the Scriptures for the Church through the ages. They cannot show that because Paul did not teach that, and the Scriptures as a whole do not teach that!
2. Tradition. Our Roman opponents, while making much of tradition, will never really define tradition or tell you what its content is. Tradition is a word that can be used in a variety of ways. It can refer to a certain school of understanding the Scriptures, such as the Lutheran tradition. It can refer to traditions — supposedly from the apostles — that are not in the Bible. It can refer to developing traditions in the history of the church that are clearly not ancient in origin. Usually, in the ancient fathers of the church, the word “tradition” refers to the standard interpretation of the Bible among them. And we Protestants value such traditions.
But what do Roman apologists mean when they assert the authority of tradition? Historically, they have not agreed among themselves about the nature and content of tradition. For example, one has said that tradition does not add anything to Scripture. But almost all Roman apologists, for over three hundred years after the Council of Trent, argued that tradition does add to the Scriptures. Some Roman apologists believe that all binding tradition was taught by the apostles, while others believe that tradition evolves and develops through the centuries of the church so that there are traditions necessary for salvation that were never known to the apostles. It is impossible to know what the real Roman position is on this matter.
The Second Vatican Council expressed itself with deliberate ambiguity: “This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. . . . For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fulness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.”4 What does that mean? It certainly does not give us any clear understanding of the character or content of tradition.
Rome usually tries to clarify its position by saying that its authority is Scripture, tradition, and church together. Vatican II declared: “It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scriptures and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God?s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”5
In fact, however, if you listen carefully, you will notice that the real authority for Rome is neither Scripture nor tradition, but the church. What is the Scripture, and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you. What is tradition, and what does it teach? Only the church can tell you. As the Roman theologian John Eck said, “The Scriptures are not authentic, except by the authority of the church.”6 As Pope Pius IX said at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870, “I am tradition.”7 The overwhelming arrogance of such a statement is staggering. But it confirms our claim that, for Rome, the only real authority is the church: sola ecclesia.
Now Protestantism arose in the sixteenth century in reaction to such claims and teachings of the Roman church. In the Middle Ages, most within the church had believed that the Bible and the tradition of the church taught the same, or at least complementary, doctrines. But as Luther and others studied the Bible with a greater care and depth than the church had done in centuries, they began to discover that tradition actually contradicted the Bible. They discovered that, for example:
(1) The Bible teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1:5-7), but tradition says they are different offices.
(2) The Bible teaches that all have sinned except Jesus (Romans 3:10-12, Hebrews 4:15), but tradition says that Mary was sinless.
(3) The Bible teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28, 10:10), but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.
(4) The Bible says that we are not to bow down to statues (Exodus 20:4, 5), but tradition says that we should bow down to statues.
(5) The Bible says that all Christians are saints and priests (Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9), but tradition says that saints and priests are special castes within the Christian community.
(6) The Bible says that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but tradition says Mary is co-mediator with Christ.
(7) The Bible says that all Christians should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.
The Reformers saw that the words of Jesus to the Pharisees applied equally to their day: “You nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matthew 15:6).
The Reformers also discovered that tradition contradicted tradition. For example, the tradition of the Roman church teaches that the pope is the head of the church, a bishop over all bishops. But Gregory the Great, pope and saint at the end of the ancient church period, said that such a teaching came from the spirit of Antichrist (“I confidently affirm that whosoever calls himself sacerdos universalis, or desires to be so called by others is in his pride a forerunner of Antichrist”)8
More directly related to our discussion is the evident tension in tradition about the value of reading the Bible. The Index of Forbidden Books of Pope Pius IV in 1559 said:
Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men, the judgment of the bishops and inquisitors is to serve as guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety. The permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession without this permission cannot be absolved from his sins until he has turned in these Bibles.9
In marked contrast, Vatican II stated: “Easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. . . Since the word of God should be available at all times, the Church with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books.”10 Does tradition believe that the Bible is dangerous or helpful? The Bible did prove dangerous in the sixteenth century; most who read it carefully became Protestants!
Such discoveries about tradition led the Reformers back to the Bible. There they learned that the Scriptures must stand as judge of all teaching. The Scripture teaches that it is the revelation of God, and is therefore true in all that it teaches. But nowhere does the Scripture say that the church is true in all it says. Rather, although the church as a whole will be preserved in the faith, wolves will arise in the church (Acts 20:29, 30), and even the man of lawlessness will sit at the heart of the church teaching lies (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
3. This brings us to our third concern, the church and the canon. Our Roman opponents will use the word “ church” repeatedly. Those of us who are Protestants will normally be inclined to interpret their use of the word “church” as referring to the body of the faithful. But that is not the way they characteristically use the word. When they refer to the authority of the church, they mean the infallible teaching authority of councils and popes. That view of the church they take from the Middle Ages and in a romantic way read back into the ancient church period. So notice very carefully how they use the word “church.” And remember that neither the Scriptures, nor the great majority of the fathers of the ancient church period, understand the authority of the church in the way they do.
Let me offer as an illustration two examples from the work of Augustine, often quoted against the Protestant position on the question of the authority of the church. At one point in his debate with the Pelagians, a bishop of Rome sided with Augustine, and Augustine declared, “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” Later, however, another pope opposed Augustine on this subject, and Augustine responded by saying, “Christ has spoken, the matter is settled.” Augustine did not bow to the authority of the bishop of Rome, but turned to the word of Christ to evaluate the teaching of Rome.
Another statement of Augustine’s, often cited by Roman apologists, reads: “I would not have believed had not the authority of the catholic church moved me.” That seems very strong and clear. But in another place Augustine wrote: “I would never have understood Plotinus had not the authority of my neo-Platonic teachers moved me.” This parallel shows that Augustine is not talking about some absolute, infallible authority in the church, but rather about the ministerial work of the church and about teachers who help students understand.
Let us look at the church further by raising a related issue: the canon of Scripture. Romanists will try to make much of the issue of the canon. They will tell you that the Bible alone cannot be our authority because the Bible does not tell us what books are in the Bible. They will argue that the church must tell us what books are in the Bible. When they say the church tells us, they mean popes and councils must tell us. This implies that we did not have a Bible until Pope Damasus offered a list of the canon in 382, or, perhaps, until 1546 when the Council of Trent became the first “ecumenical”council to define the canon. But of course the people of God had the Bible before 1546 and before 382.
In the first place, the church always had Scripture. The apostolic preaching and writing of the first century repeatedly verified its teaching by quoting from the Old Testament. The quotations from, and allusions to, the Old Testament abound in the New Testament. The New Testament does not reject the Old, but fulfills it (Romans 1:2; Luke 16:29; Ephesians 2:19, 20). The church always had a canonical foundation in the Old Testament.
In the second place, we can see that the apostles sensed that the new covenant inaugurated by our Lord Jesus would have a new or augmented canon. Canon and covenant are interrelated and interdependent in the Bible (see Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority). Peter testifies to this emerging canon when he includes the letters of Paul as part of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16).
In the third place, we must see that the canon of Scripture is, in a real sense, established by the Scripture itself, because the canonical books are self-authenticating. As God’s revelation, they are recognized by the people of God as God’s own Word. As Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd; I know My sheep and My sheep know Me. They . . . will listen to My voice” (John 10:14-16). In the deepest sense we cannot judge the Word, but the Word judges us. “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). The self-authenticating character of the canon is demonstrated by the remarkable unanimity reached by the people of God on the canon.
In the fourth place, we must see that historically the canon was formed not by popes and councils; these actions simply recognized the emerging consensus of the people of God as they recognized the authentic Scriptures. Indeed, whatever criteria were used by popes and councils to recognize the canon (authorship, style, content, witness of the Spirit, etc.), these same criteria were available to the people of God as a whole.
We can see this basic understanding of the formation of the canon stated in The New Catholic Encyclopedia which states: “The canon, already implicitly present in the apostolic age, gradually became explicit through a number of providential factors forming and fixing it.”11
We can also see this basic approach to the canon reflected in the words of Augustine, writing in his important treatise entitled On Christian Doctrine. This treatise was written between 396 and 427 — after the supposedly authoritative decision of Pope Damasus on the canon, and after a council held in Hippo had discussed the canon. Augustine wrote:
In the matter of canonical Scriptures he should follow the authority of the greater number of catholic Churches, among which are those which have deserved to have apostolic seats and receive epistles. He will observe this rule concerning canonical Scriptures, that he will prefer those accepted by all catholic Churches to those which some do not accept; among those which are not accepted by all, he should prefer those which are accepted by the largest number of important Churches to those held by a few minor Churches of less authority. If he discovers that some are maintained by the larger number of Churches, others by the Churches of weightiest authority, although this condition is not likely, he should hold them to be of equal value.12
This statement shows that Augustine did not look to popes or councils for the solution of the question of the canon. He recognized the variety among churches, and the appropriateness of a plurality of churches. He urged all students of Scripture to examine the question and to look for the emerging consensus among the people of God. Like Augustine, we do not disparage the value of the witness of the people of God to the canon. We value the ministry of the church in this as in all things. But we deny that the church in its offices or councils authoritatively establishes the Scripture on the basis of some knowledge or power not available to Christians generally. The character of the canonical books draws the people of God to them.
4. Unity. Notice how Catholics use the word “unity.” They will suggest that we Protestants disprove our claim of the clarity of the Scripture by our failure to agree about the meaning of the Scripture. We recognize that Protestants are divided into various denominations. But all Protestants who are heirs of the Reformation are united in understanding the gospel and in respecting one another as brothers in Christ. We have all found the same gospel clearly in the Bible.
When we discuss unity and authority, let us be certain that we are making fair and accurate comparisons. Our Roman opponents will want to compare Roman theory with Protestant practices. That is not fair. We must compare theory with theory or practice with practice. In practice, neither group has the agreement we should have. Remember that while Rome is united organizationally, it is just as divided theologically as is Protestantism broadly understood. The institution of an infallible pope has not created theological unity in the Roman church. Rather, Roman theologians are constantly disagreeing with each other as to what the popes have taught, and as to whether those teachings are in fact proclaimed ex cathedra, and are therefore infallible. The modern state of the Roman church really has shown that the institution of the papacy has not made clear the necessary content of Christian truth. I suspect that every honest member of the Roman church will have to acknowledge that.
As early as the seventeenth century the Reformed theologian Francis Turretin noted the serious theological divisions in the Roman church and asked why the pope did not settle these disputes if his office was so effective.13 Such theological problems are certainly much greater today than in Turretin’s day and the question remains unanswered as to why the pope is so ineffective.13
We should not be surprised that there are divisions in the church. Christ and His apostles predicted that there would be. The Apostle Paul told us that such divisions are useful. He wrote: “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Differences should humble us and drive us back to the Scriptures to test all claims to truth. If we do not accept the Scriptures as our standard and judge, there is indeed no hope for unity.
The church must have a standard by which to judge all claims to truth. The church must have a standard of truth by which to reform and purify itself when divisions arise. The church cannot claim that it is that standard and defend that claim by appealing to itself. Such circular reasoning is not only unconvincing; it is self-defeating. Rome’s argument boils down to this: we must believe Rome because Rome says so.
The Bible tells us that the Word of God is the light that enables us to walk in the ways of God. Listen to Psalm 119:99, 100, 105, 130: “I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on Thy statutes. I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey Thy precepts. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light for my path. The unfolding of Thy words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.”
Roman opponents usually object to an appeal to Psalm 119 on the grounds that it speaks of the Word of God, not of the Bible, and therefore could include in its praise tradition as well as Scripture. But their argument is irrelevant to our use of Psalm 119, because we are using it to prove the clarity, not the sufficiency of Scripture! The Psalmist is saying here that the light of the Word shines so brightly and clearly that if I meditate on it and obey it, I am wiser than any teacher or elder. The simple can understand it. The Word is like a strong flashlight in a dark forest. It enables me to walk on the path without tripping.
We must listen to the Scriptures so that we will act as God’s Word teaches us to act. Consider the story of Paul in Berea, Acts 17:10-12. Paul preached there in the synagogue and many Jews responded to his preaching with eagerness. We are told that after they listened to Paul each day they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. How did Paul react? Did he say that the Scriptures were not clear, and that only he as an apostle or the rabbis or the Sanhedrin could tell them what the Scriptures really meant? Or did he say that they should not expect to find the truth in the Scriptures because they were incomplete and needed to be supplemented by tradition? Or did he say that they were insulting his apostolic authority, and that they should simply submit to him as the infallible interpreter of the Bible? Or did Paul say that they should defer to Peter as the only one who could interpret the Bible? No! He did not say any of these things. The practice of the Bereans is praised in the Bible. They are called noble because they evaluated everything on the basis of the written Word of God.
If we would be faithful children of God, if we would be noble, we must proceed as the Bereans did. We must follow the example of Moses and Paul and our Lord Jesus. Do not rest your confidence on the wisdom of men who claim infallibility. Stand rather with the Apostle Paul who wrote in 1 Corinthians 4:6, "Do not go beyond what is written."
NOTES
William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge,: University Press, 1849) P. 411. Cited in Whitaker, p. 637. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine trans. by D.W. Roberston, Jr. (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958) 11:9. The Documents of Vatican II, ed. waiter M. Abbott (New York: Herden and Herden, 1966) p. 116. Dei Verbum, 8. Ibid., p. 118. John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) P. 13. Jesef Rupert Geiselmann, The Meaning of Tradition (Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1966)p. 16, note on pp. 113,114. Cited in Cambridge Medieval History, section written by W. H. Hutton, edited by H. M. Gwatkin and J. P. Whitney,(New York: The MacMillan Co., 1967) 11:247. James Townley, Illustrations of Biblical Literature, Vol. 2 (London: printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1821) p. 481 Documents of Vatican II, PP. 125,126. Cited in a tape by William Webster entitled “The Canon,” available from Christian Resources, 304 West T Street, Battleground, WA 98604. This tape is part 3 of a 16 tape series entitled Roman Catholic Tradition: Its Roots and Evolution. On Christian Doctrine, Book 2 section VIII, trans. by D. W. Roberston, Jr. (New York.: Liberal Arts Press, 1958) p. 41. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, trans. by George Musgrave Giger, ed. by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1992) p. 156.
The Papists have tried to attack sola scriptura and have challenged Protestants to defend it. However, it was the Papists that anathematized sola scriptura at the Council of Trent. It seems to me that if Papists wish to use the magesterial authority to bring a curse on anyone, the RCC must carry the burden of proof, not the Protestant.
The RCC cannot claim that it is the standard for settling the issue of the role of scripture by appealing to its own authority. In doing so, Rome attempts to define the terms of the debate: the church, truth and tradition. Protestants did not allow the Papists to define the terms of the debate. They will not do so now.
The Papists have sought to ascribe the motives of Protestants regarding the role of Scripture. Fine. One must question the morality of such ascriptions, but questions of morality have never deterred the Papists before.
However, since the question has never been raised, it seems entirely possible that the only reason why the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is under attack by the Papists in general, and on this board in particular, is because Catholics are starting to actually read their Bibles and are becoming Protestants! Therefore, the Papist might be attacking the sufficiency of scripture in order to keep their people in line.
Fire away! Rebut the article, but we Protestants will not give any quarter to scanalous attacks on our motives, our consciences or our devotion to God. Rebut the article and its reasoning not the messenger.
The Church did not always have an agreed upon list concerning which texts counted as inspired. It is an agreed upon list that is necessary for “sola scriptura” to get off the ground.
In the second place, we can see that the apostles sensed that the new covenant inaugurated by our Lord Jesus would have a new or augmented canon. Canon and covenant are interrelated and interdependent in the Bible (see Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority). Peter testifies to this emerging canon when he includes the letters of Paul as part of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16).
But did the apostles leave a list as to which of the emerging texts counted as inspired? Without a list, it was up to later generations to acknowledge which texts counted as inspired, and to draw up the list. Furthermore 2 Peter 3:16 says neither which texts attributed to Paul are actually by Paul, nor does it say which texts of Paul, Peter has in mind.
In the third place, we must see that the canon of Scripture is, in a real sense, established by the Scripture itself, because the canonical books are self-authenticating .
Oh brother, if the texts are self-authenticating, then why does he say in the next paragraph that the popes and the councils used criteria to which everyone has access? If being one of Christ’s sheep is sufficient for identifying which texts count as inspired, then why were popes and councils necessary to resolve all the disagreement about the supposedly self-authenticating texts? Why was there not spontaneous agreement? Why did they have to use criteria at all?
Any Protestant want to take the self-authenticating test? Which of the following sentences are inspired by the Holy Spirit? a.) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. b.) Speak to my sisters, that they love the Lord, and be satisfied with their husbands both in the flesh and spirit.
Note: you must figure out the answer without making reference to your Bible. The answer should be self-authenticating.
In the fourth place, we must see that historically the canon was formed not by popes and councils; these actions simply recognized the emerging consensus of the people of God as they recognized the authentic Scriptures. Indeed, whatever criteria were used by popes and councils to recognize the canon (authorship, style, content, witness of the Spirit, etc.), these same criteria were available to the people of God as a whole.
Emerging consensus?! There were no few bloody words exchanged between Augustine and Jerome on which books were inspired.
Let’s look at the criteria that were necessary for these supposedly self-authenticating texts:
authorship-- too bad the authorship was then and now in dispute, especially with the last two letters of John and Revelation
style-- the style of a text is hardly accessible to those members of the people of God who happen not to know Greek, which is a significant number of them. What about those who could not read at all? How were they supposed to figure out the style? Besides, every text has styl. Which styles argue for inspiration and which do not? And how in the world were the people of God supposed to know which styles argued for inspiration and which did not.
content --here begins the circular reasoning. By content I assume that he means that a text could not count as inspired unless every part of it was consistent with the received rule of faith or some shared understanding of what was orthodox and what was not. But this is precisely the Catholic’s point, there was a rule of faith, or a shared understanding of what was orthodox, already received in the Church, transmitted without the presence of an agreed upon canon of texts, and that rule of faith or shared understanding served as an essential criterion according to which the texts were acknowledged to be inspired or not. The rule of faith could not have been simply identical with a specified list of texts, for the specified list did not yet exist, and was itself being worked out according to a presupposed understanding of what constitutes orthodoxy.
witness of the Spirit --does this mean that the popes and the conciliar bishops were guarded by the Holy Spirit from all error in their final decisions as to what went on the list of inspired texts? If so, then he just conceded the infallibility of the Church. If the witness of the Holy Spirit was anything less than that, then it is conceivable that the list is wrong. The final judgment of the councils and popes, even though the Spirit helped, might very well have been wrong. Maybe the book of Revelation is not inspired after all? Maybe James is not? Maybe the deutero-canonicals are inspired, maybe the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is inspired. After all, it was received in the church of Corinth as such for quite some time.
Finally, answer this you Protestants. Why is the following story not a self-authenticating proclamation of God’s own word?
Jesus Christ established a church, and he intended that church to be one in its official doctrinal commitments, holy in the sense that the head of the church—Christ-- is preeminently holy and that personal holiness is developed in and through the practices of the church, catholic in the sense that the whole of Christ’s message would remain preserved throughout all time and spread to the whole world, and apostolic in the sense that the teaching authority of the Christ himself flows from Christ, through the apostles, to the successors of the apostles. The successors to the apostles – bishops-- constitute a college with the successor of Peter as its head, and when the bishops of the Church solemnly declare a certain teaching, it is no one less than the Holy Spirit who guarantees the truth of the teaching they declare. The Holy Spirit guarantees both the teaching of the whole college, and the teaching of the successor of Peter in particular (under certain specified conditions). The Scriptures are a privileged source from which the Church formulates the message that Christ has revealed to the world, and it is only by reading the Scriptures with the Church – who has the right understanding of them—that one can come to the real meaning of the Scriptures and the message of Christ.
Suppose I hear this story proclaimed by the Catholic Church and it strikes me in my heart to be a perfectly reliable word of God? What if it authenticates itself to me?
Are you asking whether I know which books were listed in earlier lists of canoninical texts? No, I do not know which books they listed, the lists were destroyed after all. But, then, seeing that they were destoyed, how do you know a.)that there was exactly one canon destoyed and not a plurality of disagreeing lists, b.) that even if there was one canon, it agreed with the canon you yourself currently use, and c.)that no other local church had any canons rivalling the one's destoyed?
Clearly there was a canon of scripture before Constantine, right?
I suppose there were several lists of books prior to Constantine. But they disagreed with each other, and the various texts were received differently in various local churches. Was there a single canon received as normative throughout the universal Church? No. If there was one list received throughout the universal Church, why was there so much disagreement between local churches both before and after Constantine as to which texts were inspired?
Do you think that Pope Damasus might have gotten his canon from those bibles that survived the Diocletian destruction.?
It is logically possible that Damasus got a canon from lists that survived destruction, but possiblities do not argue for actualities. Even if he did, so what? Let us assume for the sake of argument that he did get his canon from a list that survived destruction. That does the defender of sola scriptura no good unless you can show further that 1.) the canon he "got" was the only canon received as normative throughout all the local churches,2.) that no decisions had to be made as to which list was to be normative for all. But if there were multiple lists treated as normative in different local churches, and a variety of views about which texts counted as inspired,then somebody or other had to make a judgment as to which texts counted as inspired. Now, that judgment -- whoever made it-- was either fallible or infallible. Which alternative do you prefer?
Well, having completely failed the test of apostleship, you have no grounds for claim to divine inspiration. Even if your story was true, which it is not, that does not make it scriptural any more than any church creed is scripture or any more than Cliff's Notes are the same as the books themselves.
Regarding authorship, apparently you completely missed Augustine's quotes regarding deferring to the majority. It's one thing to do a little homework on the origins of points of scripture, but I submit that anyone who makes blunt proclamations of certain parts of scripture being unauthentic has an agenda with an ignoble goal.
What is the standard of truth by which to reform and purify the church of false and conflicting interpretations of Scripture? It cannot be Scripture alone.You seem to think that texts-without-interpretations are standards of truth, when in fact a text-without-an-interpretation is nothing but language that is susceptible to numerous, diverse, and conflicting, and inconsistent thoughts in its readers. The text needs to have a normative interpretation in order to be the source for a body of readers to form a single, common, consistent set of thoughts. The standard of truth in the church, therefore, must be an understanding of Scripture normative for all members of the Church. Is it your personal understanding of Scripture that is normative for all members of the church? If it is, then you attribute to yourself the very same authority that the Catholic Church attributes to herself, for she holds nothing other than that her interpretation of Scripture is normative for all her members. If your personal understanding of Scripture, your view as to what the text really means, is not normative for all Christians, then why should the Bishops of the Catholic Church, or anyone else for that matter, consider themselves beholden to your understanding of Scripture?
If we were to have two standards for life and faith to bind the conscience of individuals, those standards must be infallible. Dr. Godfrey has articulated several traditions in which the RCC developed one tradition and then rejected it in favor of another. Which tradition was correct? If the tradition has changed, that means that it is necessarily fallible at some point. The Bible is not subject to such difficulties and is infallible. Why trust a standard subject to error?
Jesus Christ established a church...
What do you mean by church? I think we have different definitions of that term.
and he intended that church to be one in its official doctrinal commitments, holy in the sense that the head of the church—Christ-- is preeminently holy and that personal holiness is developed in and through the practices of the church, catholic in the sense that the whole of Christ’s message would remain preserved throughout all time and spread to the whole world, and apostolic in the sense that the teaching authority of the Christ himself flows from Christ, through the apostles, to the successors of the apostles.
For one thing, Christ is not only preeminently holy, He is the only one who is holy and He actually defines holiness. In addition, you do not account for the fact that the church of Jesus Christ is served by sinful men. In fact, unbelievers could take up positions of authority. Other than that, I am generally tracking with you. The successors to the apostles – bishops-- constitute a college with the successor of Peter as its head, and when the bishops of the Church solemnly declare a certain teaching, it is no one less than the Holy Spirit who guarantees the truth of the teaching they declare.
If that is what you believe, fine, but there is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures which points necessarily to your conclusion. As a presbyterian, I believe in the rule of elders and the authority of synods and councils. But, I see nothing pointing to the conclusion that Peter is the successor of Christ. In addition, because of the sinful nature of men, there is not necessarily so that all doctinal statements can be guaranteed to be error free.
The Holy Spirit guarantees both the teaching of the whole college, and the teaching of the successor of Peter in particular (under certain specified conditions).
Uh... OK, so what is the scriptural basis for this teaching?
"The Scriptures are a privileged source from which the Church formulates the message that Christ has revealed to the world, and it is only by reading the Scriptures with the Church – who has the right understanding of them—that one can come to the real meaning of the Scriptures and the message of Christ."
"only." If that is true, then it would be extremely dangerous for an individual to own their own Bible. But the RCC at Vatican II said that individuals should be encouraged to own and read a Bible in their own language. So which tradition is it? Vatican II or the Catholic Story?
Again you repeat the oft repeated assertion that the Bible means what the RCC says it means because the RCC says it is the only entity qualified to say what it means. Again circular reasoning. And that dog won't hunt.
The RCC anathematized the adherents to sola scriptura. It has the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that Protestants deserve the curse of the RCC.
Will someone PLEASE answer that question.
I give a stipulative definition of "church" -- look at the Catholic Church. That is what I mean by "church".
You say if that is true, then it would be extremely dangerous for an individual to own their own Bible. You are replying to the line in the Story in which I use the expression "reading the Scriptures with the Church". When I say "reading" I do not mean merely the act of looking at letters on the page, but reading in the richer sense of actually thinking through, contemplating the meaning of, receiving what is said. Reading, in my sense of the term, is a lifelong process that includes multiple acts of sitting down with the text in front of you. So the points about individuals owning bibles is irrelevant. I think all Catholics should have a bible and read it, and one can be sitting in a room by onself, looking at the bible and still be "reading with the Church". The sense of "reading" I had in mind was the same sense as you have when you ask someone "how do YOU read Romans ch.6?" You are not asking whether they sit or stand while glancing at the pages. You are asking how they understand the text.
you repeat the oft repeated assertion that the Bible means what the RCC says it means because the RCC says it is the only entity qualified to say what it means. No, I am asking why a person, say, me, cannot make a non-inferential assent to the WHOLE Catholic Story, and make that assent NOT because the Catholic Church tells the Story, but in light of the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that the Catholic Story is not merely the Church's Story, but God's own story. Could someone PLEASE answer that question without appealing to the very thesis being disputed on this thread, i.e. sola scriptura?
I guess I am to assume that you would reject the claims of any Catholic apologist that engages in circular thinking? Get back to the original point and please address the article itself.
The original message of salvation through Jesus Christ was adulterated at the hands of the church of the middle ages. The saving message was corrupted by a priestly caste, and fell into all sorts of bizarre or otherwise false beliefs and practices. Everything from the nature of the Lord’s Supper (real presence and sacrificial character) to Mariolatry to purgatory to the very idea of a special priesthood itself was a bogus invention of men. The church of the middle ages was able to corrupt the message through an assimilation of power/authority to the bishop of Rome, an assimilation unwarranted by the texts of Scripture. The assimilation took place by telling a false tale about apostolic succession, petrine primacy, and other related issues. In order to recover the original message of Christ, it is necessary for all Christians to put a check on the so-called “authority” of Rome by placing Scripture, which is God’s own word, ABOVE any church authority. The Scriptures must constrain the arbitrary teachings of men. Simply taking Scripture as one’s guide, and with the guaranteed help of the Holy Spirit, the doctrines that are truly necessary to be believed for salvation can easily be retrieved from the swarm of confusing myths and merely human ideas (many of them originating in pagan circles) that crept into in the church’s traditions.
If it has not become clear to you by now, both Catholics and Protestants have their respective stories, and personally, I think that both parties assent to each in a non-inferential way. Godfrey's article is exactly what we should expect from someone who is already convinced of the Protestant Story.
By the way, saying that a non-inferential assent to the Catholic story is bogus does not make it so, and there is no point in saying that the Catholic Story is based on The Catholic Church's presuppositions. The Story JUST IS those presuppositions.
How does anyone arrive at the Protestant Story? Simple. You posit sola scriptura, and perspicuity, derive from your reading of the text what the Christian doctrines are, then compare your derivations with the teaching of the Catholic Church. It seems to you that the teachings of the Catholic Church are at odds with what you have derived from Scripture. Furthermore, there seems to be some odd features of Catholic history that worry you. For example, it appears that the Church changed its teachings on certain points. From the comparison between what you think the Scriptures say, and wht you think Rome is saying, it just seems impossible to you that Rome has everything right in its official doctrinal pronouncements. Then, just because it seems so impossible that Rome has everything right, you make a non-inferential assent to the Protestant Story. But is this a reliable method by which to arrive at the truth? Consider the following facts:
1.) You are fallible.
2.) You are limited in your intellectual capacities.
3.) You are sinful, as am I, with a tendency to rationalize.
4.) You need to have your mind continuously renewed by grace
5.) You need to constantly develop your own thinking
6.) You are confronted with a text that has the following properties
a. Written in a foreign language
b. In a foreign culture,
c. with foreign presuppositions
d. with foreign narrative habits
e. with foreign interpretative habits
f. having prima facie internal inconsistencies
g. Susceptible to multiple, conflicting interpretations
h. Having disputed canons, translations, and original wording
i. Proposing mysteries that surpass perfect comprehension
j. About the things most difficult of all to understand clearly
k. That has been thought about continuously by millions of people
l. Each of whom has had personally nuanced readings
7.) You have limited time for study and prayer over the texts.
8.) It is impossible for you to read every argument, counterargument, objection and reply that has ever been offered in interpretative conflicts.
9.) It is impossible for you to read MOST of what has been written about the Scriptures. You could hardly read all of Augustine, nonetheless Chrysostom, Leo, Gregory, etc. We have not even begun to talk about modern commentaries.
10.) It is impossible for you to master all the relevant theological and philosophical literature.
Given facts 1 – 10, how much confidence should anyone have in the method by way of which you arrive at the Protestant Story. How much confidence should YOU have in the Protestant Story? I am sorry, but given facts 1 – 10, I do not so overestimate my rational powers that I think that that I can confidently arrive at the Protestant Story by way of the method outlined above. Even if I were to study and think about the issues for the rest of my life, each of facts 1 – 10 would pose a formidable occasion to pause and think that perhaps I did not yet have the final word on whether the Scriptures really meant what I thought it meant, or even whether the Scriptures I had were inspired at all.
Being the sort of creature that I am, in just these sort of circumstances, I count on God to provide a way for me to satisfy my aspirations for knowing the revealed truth to the fullest extent possible, and without fear of being deceived. But lo and behold, there is the Catholic Church telling a different story. On that story, they do not say “Hey kid, figure it out on you own. Pick up the bible, it is perspicuous enough. You won’t go to hell, if you just believe.” Sorry, I want to do more than avoid hell. I want to know God as completely as possible in this life, and without fear of being deceived. Which looks like the divine methodology to me? Which looks like the response of a loving God to my noble aspirations that He Himself put in me, aspirations to know Him personally as best I can? Evidently, the Catholic one looks more like divine methodology than the highly overconfident, human methods of Protestantism. With the addition of a couple of other impressive attributes the Church has, the Holy Spirit has thus convinced me to give my assent to the Catholic Story as God’s own word. Unlike the Protestant Story, which is evidently a human myth whose origins we can trace to Western Europe about four hundred years ago (as Godfrey himself effectively admits), Catholic truth is evidently divine. I am done with Godfrey, same old thing.
Amen!
God bless.
I think the Catholic Story issues from God himself, and our dispute is over the method by which to verify it. Gophack is right in saying that the Story is based on Scripture, in the sense that Scripture is one of the several media by way of which the divine testimony is transmitted. My contention is that no Protestant employs a method that is reliable enough to verify the following proposition "The Catholic Story is not from God".
If you want to know how I arrive at the position that the Catholic Story is from God, look at Acts ch. 17, look at the way Dionysius converted at the preaching of Paul. Did Dionysius verify Paul's word's against a text? Of course not, Dionysius was a Gentile, and the Scriptures were not even on his mental horizon before he heard Paul. Did Dionysius begin to invoke the Old Testament against Paul? Of course not, he still had to learn the meaning of the Old Testament. How did Dionysius convert? Simple. He heard Paul's testimony, became convinced that Paul's testimony did not originate with Paul, but was in fact the word of God, and so believed it. In short, the word of God was communicated orally to Dionysius, and Dionysius was able to recognize Paul's word as being of divine origin without making reference to a text. The spoken procalmation alone was recognizably divine for Dionysius.
Now, Paul:Dionysius::Catholic Church:me
The Catholic Church is the historical prolongation of the Pauline mission, and ultimately, of Christ's mission. If the Church proclaims a story orally to me, why is it impossible to recognize the oral story as being of divine origin?
Now, IF, IF one and the same divine story comes through multiple media --written and oral-- then I would only be causing confusion and creating difficulties where there need not be any should I invoke the written medium against the speakers of the oral story. Since there is no prior constraint on the possibility that one and the same story can come through the two media -- oral and written--and if the Holy Spirit is testifying to me that the Catholic Story, as spoken by the Church, comes from God, then why not accept it as God's own word?
By the way, my faith is in God first, and in the story on account of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.