Posted on 08/14/2006 11:19:14 AM PDT by Gamecock
Sola Scriptura is a latin phrase which was coined by the Reformed Church during the 1500's. It means 'scripture solely' or, 'scripture alone.' By these words the faithful Christians of this era were standing up for the Biblical principle that the Holy Scriptures were God's inspired Word, and as such were the sole infallible rule of faith. By definition the Word of God had to be the ultimate authority for the Church, and not (as some had supposed) the Roman catholic church, it's pope, and magisterium. Since the position of the Roman church was mutually exclusive to that of those faithful Christians who protested it (and thus were labled, protestants), both obviously could not be correct. If the faithful Christian Church was going to stand on God's Word as the ultimate or supreme authority, then there would have to be a 'reforming' of that Church. A restoring of faith in the laws of God which the Church had fallen away from. Much like when a criminal reforms himself to now obey the laws which were always there, but which he had previously neglected. Likewise, these faithful Christians understood that they had erred and must return to the former obedience and reliance upon God's law. A good analogy is in the Old Testament when the Priest Hilkiah brought the law of God (that had been previously neglected) to the faithful King Josiah and He, reading God's law, understood this principle of being reformed from breaking the law.
2nd Kings 22:10-13
Likewise these faithful Reformers read God's law and understood that their fathers had not harkened unto the Words of the Book. Thus, on October 31, 1517, for all intents and purposes the Reformation began when a German Monk by the name of Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Roman Catholic Church door in Wittenberg Germany. The faithful would no longer forsake the laws of God's book in favor of tradition, and would return to the Biblical precepts of not leaning unto their own understanding or that of their Church leaders, but upon the Scriptures alone (Sola Scriptura) as their ultimate authority.
Actually, calling it 'Sola Scriptura' might be contrued as a bit of a misnomer, because it is not a doctrine which teaches that we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that all other authorities must be subordinate to the Word of God. Thus the phrase 'Sola scriptura' implies several things. First, that the scriptures are a direct revelation from God, and as such are His authoritative Word. It is also a term which illustrates that the scriptures are all that is necessary for Christian faith and practice today. Not only that the scriptures are sufficient, but that they also are the ultimate and final court of appeal on all doctrinal matters. Because however good and faithful Church fathers may be in giving guidance, all the fathers, pastors, teachers, popes, and councils, are still fallible. The only infallible 'source' for truth is God. And besides God Himself, only His Holy Words (the Scriptures alone) are infallible.
The Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura ultimately pointed to a most basic concern of the faithful Church of that day, which was expressed in their cry of Soli Deo Gloria, or, 'to God alone be the Glory.' This expresses the true Christian perspective that God should receive all the Glory, and that this is done by man keeping His Word as their supreme authority. The infallible head of the Church is Christ, and not a fallible man. And so the Authority of the Church must likewise be His infallible Word, and not the words of men. No matter how faithful they might appear, they are still the word of men and thus subordinate to God's word. What is called Sola Scriptura both was, and is, essential to true Christianity. For it is the difference between God's traditions and ordinances, and man's traditions and ordinances.
What some call the oral traditions of the Church are subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation. There is absolutely no guarantee given by God or by Scripture (His Word) that such an oral tradition would be either preserved, or needed. Indeed, 2nd Timothy chapter 3 strongly implies such was not needed.
2nd Timothy 3:16-17
The Old Testament 'scriptures' thoroughly furnished man of that day unto all good works, and Christ continually referenced it to prove truths. Jesus and others read and quoted Scripture (never any oral traditions, except to condemn them). That's not an insignificant fact. Likewise, when Satan tested Jesus, the Lord made reference to 'the authority of scripture' to prove the devil wrong.
Matthew 4:3-4
What proceeds out of the mouth of God is His Holy, and this is 'written in the Bible.' That is what Jesus says man lives by, and it is what we are to live by. The Word of God, and not the words of men. No matter how faithful Christians may appear, their word is subordinate to God's Word. Jesus could have answered Satan any way that He wanted, for He is God and an original and perfect answer He could have spoken afresh at any moment. But instead, Christ pointed to what was already written in the scriptures as the reply to the adversary. i.e., that was the perfect answer! What God had inspired to be written, not the oral tradition of the day, but what had proceedeth from God's mouth and had been written in His Holy book. And this deferral to what was written in the scriptures is a lesson for all faithful Christians in what authority we should seek to prove Biblical truths. And Jesus did this not only in answering un-biblical assertions, but also when presented with scripture that was taken out of context. Jesus again defers 'to other scriptures' which qualifies the scripture in question. For example:
Matthew 4:5-11
In other words, Jesus replies to scripture taken out of context with an additional scripture which clarifies it (not denies it). In doing this, He makes sure we see the meaning of that first scripture was that, 'Yes, God will watch over us, but that doesn't mean that we can test/tempt the Lord God.' This is just another pertinent example God illustrating the authority of Scripture, even in the face of those who present other scriptures taken out of context. The Perfect answer by Christ to combat erroneous understanding of scripture, was for Him to quote 'additional Scripture' which shed more light on it's true meaning. i.e., scripture was 'still authoritative' over whatever scripture that anyone would attempt to misuse or misapply.
Matthew 4:8
Again, Jesus presents scripture, God's Word, to counter Satan's ideas and visions of glory. He says, 'It is Written!' In other words, Jesus says God's Word declares thus and thus. He never says, the Priests say, or our leaders say, or oral tradition says. Jesus, our example, says, 'it is written.' This is a representative sample or model of the posture we are to take in order to try or test the Spirits to see whether they be of God. We compare their words to God's Word, countering their tradition with the authority of God's Word. The same can be said about any debate of the doctrines of the Church. The correct principle in faithful Hermeneutics is to always defer to sound and ordered exegesis of scripture, and not to traditions or the heads of the Church. This is precisely as Jesus demonstrated in His debates with the religious leaders of His day. He appealed to the Scriptures, not to these congregational leaders, traditions, or any ecclesiastical body. The authority He appealed to, was scripture.
Matthew 21:42
There are some Roman catholic church apologists that declare this doctrine was not even heard of until 'the reformation' of the 16th century. This of course is an inaccurate and self serving claim, which can be proven false quite easily (even apart from scripture). Read this quote from the 5th century, 1100 years before the Reformation and see if you can guess who wrote it:
This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
Do you know who authored this affirmation of the principle of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine of ultimate or paramount authority of the scriptures? The author is saint Augustine of Hippo. It's a quote taken directly from his book 'City of God' (book 11, Chapter 3). This unambiguous declaration by Augustine is about as definitive a statement for Sola Scriptura as any Protestant declaration I've read. So this argument, by Biblical and historical proofs, fails miserably. The Word of God both is, and was the Supreme authority of the Church. The phrase Sola scriptura is a latin term, but obviously that doesn't mean that what it delineates was not Church doctrine from the beginning. The faithful fathers, Christ Himself, and the Apostles, all deferred to authority of scripture.
Can the scriptures contradict what some allege is 'oral apostolic tradition,' and yet that tradition still be of God? The answer of course is a resounding, No! God is not the author of confusion. The undeniable fact is, two infallible God-breathed sources cannot contradict each other. Else, at least one of them is not infallible. That is a fact. Yet God's Word and Roman catholic church traditions constantly contradict each other. This should alert any faithful student of scripture that one is neither infallible, nor of God. And these are just a few of the myriad of examples..
- The Word of God teaches that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:4,20), and that all sin is purged and we were purified in Christ, by the cross. Roman catholic traditions teach that sin can be purged later, in a place called Purgatory (place of purifying). This is Heresy!
- The Word of God teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1) but Roman tradition says they are different offices.
- The Scriptures of God teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28, 10:10), while Roman catholic tradition corrects this, claiming that the Priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.
- The Word of God teaches that we should not use vain repetitions in prayers (Matthew 6:7) thinking that we will be heard for our much speaking, while the Roman catholic traditions teach repeating Hail Mary in prayer as penitence 'as if' God indeed will hear us for our much repetition.
- The Word of God teach that all have sinned except Jesus (Romans 3:10-12, Hebrews 4:15), while Roman catholic traditions claim that's not true, as Mary was also sinless.
- The Holy scriptures teaches that all Christians are Saints and Priests (Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9), but Roman Catholic tradition has made Saints and Priests special cases and offices within the Christian community, dealt out by their Church leadership.
- The Word of God says that we are not to bow down to statues (Exodus 20:4-5), but the Roman catholic tradition makes no such claim, nor rebukes Christians for this practice.
- The Word of God says that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but Roman catholic tradition claims Mary is co-mediator with Christ.
- The Word of God says that Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Church rests, the foundation stone, and the Head of the Church (Luke 6:48, 1st Peter 2:7-8, Matthew 16:18), But Roman catholic tradition claims that the foundation Rock of the Church is Pope Peter, and that the pontiff is the head of the Church, an aberration which in effect makes God's Church, a two headed Church, with multiple authorities and starting foundation.
- The Word of God says that all Christians can and should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but Roman catholic tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.
The Reformers understood clearly that the words of our Saviour Jesus Christ to the Pharisees, applied equally to those of their day:
"..thus you have made the commandment of God of non effect by your traditions!" -Matthew 15:6
Comparing these traditions with God's Word, sadly we also understand that this practice of unrighteousness continues today. You simply cannot have tradition and scripture contradicting each other, while claiming both are the infallible teachings of God. It is blatant confusion. Any oral traditions passed down in the church is subject to the written Word of God, as it has always been. As it was for the Scribes and Pharisees. To deny this is tortuous of scripture and of authority.
Moreover, if there was an ongoing oral tradition (which there is not), it still would require a standard point of reference to check itself against, such as God speaking from the Mountain, or the scriptures. True Christians (under God's direction), realize the danger of Church tradition becoming corrupted by fallible men (as had been the case with the Pharisees, and throughout Biblical history), and so faithfulness requires an infallible scriptural check book. Christians led by the Spirit of God understood the need for a supreme final authoritative checkpoint to which every person must be subject. Thus the importance of maintaining the Apostles' and God's authoritative Word became of very great concern to them, even as it had previously with the scribes maintaining the Old Testament books. If we were to totally ignore the facts of history, that there was no Roman church nor Pope making the claims they now do during the first three or four centuries (as the foremost Church historians overwhelmingly attest), then we might fathom this. And if we were to wrongly assume there was such a Church headed by an infallible pope as the Roman church does, then this would not even begin to explain the importance believers placed on maintaining the texts of the New Testament. For indeed there would have been no need to maintain them at all. One would only need to consult the infallible Pope, who, being under God's guidance would know the truth more certainly and accurately than the Apostle's written word. In 2nd Peter 1:19, where Peter said, 'we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it,' that would be worthless.
But of course, true Christians do realize that doctrine and oral tradition are indeed subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation, and 'therefore' require a standard point of God breathed reference to check itself against. Scripture supplied and continues to supply this check. By this only we can try (test) the spirits to know whether they be of God or not (1st John 4:1). How would we do this without the authority of scripture? How would have the Priest Hilkiah? Tradition which proclaims what is non-scriptural cannot have absolute authority; It may have the authority of age, antiquity, or large consent, but it does not have ultimate compulsion or necessity. In short, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any church, any tradition, any pope or minister, is equal to Scripture. Therefore, scripture is the final authority which we try the spirits with.
Since the Bible 'is' the Word of God (as even Roman catholics whole heartily agree), then it's only rational, Biblical, and logical to profess that any other authority, cannot either contradict it, be on a par with it, nor be above it. i.e., there is no authority higher than God (what Word supersedes God's?) and no word on a par with it (what word is as good as God's?) Therefore (again logically, Biblically, and rationally speaking), in order for someone's word to be on a par with God's Word, the one speaking it would have to be God, or at the very least equal to God, or have God speak verbally to him in a voice. The Only other alternative is to be 'quoting' God from His Word. Neither the Pope, a Priest, nor anyone else is equal to God to have his word be on a par with God's Word, nor is God speaking to anyone from the smoke on the mountain or the burning Bush today, or creating new oral scriptures. The Bible is Complete, not incomplete. It needs no further additions, and condemns those who dare to add to it.
This of course is the tangled web in which the Roman church finds itself by placing tradition on a par with God's Word. For unless something is God's Word, then it cannot be equal to God's Word. And simply saying God gave it, is not sufficient for anyone to claim tradition is the Word, just as it wouldn't be for the traditions that the Pharisees held and Jesus condemned, saying, it made the Word of God of non effect.
True, God breathed His Word through the apostles that their words became the 'Word of God,' just as He did Old Testament scripture. But unless God is continuing to write his book (the scriptures) through the Roman church, then that giving of the law through those who penned scripture has ended. If it has not ended, then the Pope must rip out the page of Revelation where God says don't add to His word and throw it away. He must then proclaim the Bible incomplete, and write down every infallible Word that he (supposedly) receives of God, and place it on the pages of the Bible uncondemned for it, as it is the Word of God. ..'if' what he claims is true. If tradition was on a par with God's Word, then it would be God's Word. In fact, then there would 'again' be no oral tradition, as it would join the written Word of God 'as' the Word of God. God's Word is something God wants us to hear and obey. This is the tangled web that is woven by this un-biblical dogma of the old Roman church.
More than that, tradition can become corrupt in the congregation of God (even as it certainly had with the Pharisees in Jesus' day -mark 7:9, and in King Josiah's day), and so common sense dictates that it simply cannot and must not be trusted as the ultimate authority as the Word of God is. The words and doctrines of men are often unjustifiable by scripture, and even contradictory to it. Not surprisingly, scripture bears out the truth that any tradition or ordinance must be subordinate to the Word. Jesus made it quite clear that we simply cannot hold to any traditions which are not subordinate to scripture, and that teaching such doctrines are contrary to the gospel of Christ. Consider wisely:
Mark 7:6-8
This was no slap on the wrist, it was the worst of judgments upon them for setting aside the Word of God in order that they could keep their traditions. The exact same error of the Roman church today. The error of the religious leaders was that they had put tradition on a par with the written Word of God. In fact, they had made it superior to Scripture, as the commandments were interpreted 'by their tradition,' which makes scripture subject to it instead of vice versa. Christ rebuked them in the strongest of terms illustrating that the tradition of their congregation was subject to the scriptures, and scripture not to their tradition. Any argument which denies this (considering scriptures such as this one), is indefensible. Jesus would not have condemned them for their traditions if the tradition of God's chosen people was on a par with scripture. It made no biblical sense then, and it makes no biblical sense now.
Proverbs 30:5-6
This is a solemn declaration that every word of God is tried and pure and that we are not to add to His words, lest we be found liars. This law of God is an enduring restriction on God's revelation. Holy men of old who spake as they were inspired of God, wrote scripture. Those scriptures are now finished or complete. This is not an ongoing book. As God's people, under God's care, we have the authority of God's Word. No other supreme authorities, or institution, or object, is so circumscribed. Note that in Ecclesiastes, after reflecting on the vanity of life, the Preacher summarizes our basic duty as to, 'fear God and keep His commandments (Eccl. 12:13). We must not add to God's Word by claiming traditions are God's Word. Those who love God keep His Word alone as the authority.
Understanding this, we therefore know that those who reject the scripture today as the only 'infallible' rule of faith and practice, ultimately are subordinating the Word of God to tradition by making congregational tradition and leadership the interpreter of God's Word. It sets the words of men in the Church (no matter how faithful they may be) on a par with God's Word, and this is a dangerous and un-biblical thing to do. Every individual is ultimately responsible for what he believes, not the Church, not his Priest, and not his leader. Each man is judged for his own sin. We are all responsible to study the Bible, not leave that for others to do for us. And indeed Jesus Himself said,
John 12:48
No one practicing the Roman church doctrine of Church authority, will be able to stand before God at the judgment and plead, "..the Pope and the Magisterium, or my Priest told me to believe in this or that." There is no such 'excuse' available to man. We are to listen to God's Word rather than their word, and neglecting this, we will be judged for it. We therefore should carefully consider which authority is really infallible, and which we should follow. God's Word (a given), or our church tradition.
John 10;27
What is the voice of Christ? Is it Church leadership, a Priest, the Magisterium, or is it the Word of God? Certainly this is the crux of the matter. The truth is, it is God's Word alone that should be the final authority in matters of faith, practice, and doctrine of the Church (not the only authority, but the final, supreme and ultimate Authority).
The Lord Jesus Christ, replete with examples, taught us this principle. As when the Pharisees argued with Jesus the points of the law of God concerning the Sabbath. Did Jesus petition tradition to speak concerning it? Did He lean to ecumenical counsels? Did He say check with the High Priest? No, He showed that we are to lean upon the written Word.
Matthew 12:3-5
Matthew 19:4-5
Matthew 22:31-32
Luke 10:26
Matthew 22:29
Matthew 26:24
John 5:39
Most Roman catholics object to Sola Scriptura from two distinct positions. They argue that:
(#1) The New Testament references to oral "tradition" (II Thess. 2:15; II Tim. 2:2; II Cor. 11:2) illustrate the unbiblicalness of this teaching, and that(#2) The Scripture nowhere teaches the doctrine.
Isn't it ironic that in both cases 'they appeal to scripture' (though unjustifiably) as the final proof or authority that their traditions are correct? When it suits their purpose, they can always appeal to scripture (as in the keys of the kingdom, Peter the Rock, translations of words describing Mary's other Children, etc.) as the final say, but when it doesn't suit their purpose, curiously, scripture isn't really the final authority on doctrine.
Nevertheless, the first argument is based upon a simplistic and naive understanding of Sola Scriptura in that it presupposes the doctrine means there was never any oral tradition or teaching done. This of course would be ludicrous, as much of the New Testament was oral tradition or teaching of God before it was written down (see the Study on 'Traditions of men vs. Traditions of God'). I have yet to find anyone except catholics themselves who believes Sola Scriptura means what they purport. So this argument is the proverbial "Straw Man" argument. Things revealed to Peter, and which he was inspired of God to say (oral tradition or ordinances) became the written 'Word of God' as they were penned, just as the Old Testament was. But the Bible is complete today. i.e., there is no New Newer Testament book of Pope John, or Pope this or that, as there is a book of Peter, or John, or jude, etc. Because the Word of God is finished, complete, and not to be added to.
In so far as the second argument is concerned, as I've been demonstrating throughout this document, scripture clearly teaches what has been labled 'Sola Scriptura,' from the beginning of it to the end. But it requires the Holy Spirit of God to discern this, just as any doctrine of scripture does. To simply say scripture doesn't teach it, despite the mountain of scriptures supporting it, is to stick ones head in the proverbial sand. With Jesus proving that what He says is true by directing us to the scriptures, it would seem that the Roman church and Pope would likewise direct all to the scriptures. Instead, they claim an infallible authority 'over' the scripture itself, alleging that only they can interpret it. What arrogance and vanity is this?
It would seem to me that given the abundance of examples and illustrations of God, the onus is on the Roman church to 'disprove' the sufficiency of scripture, rather than on the Church to prove it's insufficiency. Because both sides agree scripture 'is' the Word of God, and no other authority is above God. How then is it insufficient? But saying this, the Roman church has a mystery that is a riddle inside an enigma. How is no other authority above God's, while God's Word is subject to church teachings? It makes no sense. How is scripture not sufficient, and yet God declare that there cannot be added anything else to it?
In order to disprove sufficiency of scripture, one would need to show us exactly where oral tradition differs from Scripture. If it doesn't differ, then what is the need of oral tradition, and why does God say scripture thoroughly furnished them unto all good works? And If oral tradition is not found taught in the scriptures (because it presumably differs from), one must then prove that the 'oral revelation' which was not found in scripture, is apostolic and of divine origin. Despite claims of such proof by some, no such proof exists. Therefore, they cannot prove any oral tradition handed down through tradition of a church, is of God. While scripture proves itself, interprets itself, and defines itself, in our comparing it with itself.
The fact is, the reason that the early Churches of the second century were so diligent in collecting and preserving the New Testament writings of Paul, John, Peter, and others in the first place, was to guard against oral teachings which could not be checked for accuracy once the apostles had all died. i.e., it's God himself inspiring them to preserve His Holy Word, as He did with the Old Testament Scriptures before the first advent of Christ. Sola Scriptura does not mean the rejection of every tradition, Sola Scriptura means that any form of tradition must be tested by the higher authority, and that authority can only be God (and thus God's inspired Holy Word, the Bible).
The Roman church error in the dogma of Church traditions lies in creating a dichotomy between two things that cannot be separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny Sola Scriptura.
1st Corinthians 11:2
There is simply nothing in these passages to support the idea of a separate oral tradition different from what was written. In order to deny Sola Scriptura, we must make the erroneous 'assumption' that what Paul taught in the presence of many witnesses is different from what he wrote to entire Church. Is such an idea founded in reality? Of course not. It is rationalization of oral tradition, not proof of it.
1st Thessalonians. 2:13
There is nothing future about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that 'will be' delivered? Does Paul say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? No, this oral teaching which he refers to has already been delivered to the entire Church at Thessalonica. ..Now, what does oral refer to? We first note that the context of the passage is the Gospel and its work among the Thessalonians. The traditions Paul speaks of are not traditions about Mary, Purgatory, Repetitions of hail Mary, or Papal Infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul refers to have to do with a single topic. One that is close to his heart. He is encouraging these believers to stand firm--in what? Was it in oral traditions about subjects not found in the New Testament? No, he is exhorting them to stand firm in what he has orally taught them of what is in the gospel. The Old Testament concealed is the New Testament revealed. There is simply nothing in these passages to support the theory of a separate oral tradition different from what was written or what Paul taught. It says what Paul taught whether by word, or our epistle or letter. Likewise note that in passages like 2nd Peter 3:2, Peter stresses the consistency of his teaching with that of the prophets, and of the other apostles. The unity of the Old Testament with the apostolic writings is illustrated in passages such as 1st Peter 1:10-12, and 2nd Peter 1:19-21.
One example of what is known as Sola Scriptura is made plain in the Abrahamic covenant. God again reveals Himself, apart from a divine expositor, and pledges Himself to fulfill His covenant (Gen. 15). When Abram seeks confirmation of God's Glorious Promises, the Lord confirms His divine Word by His divine Word.
Hebrews 6:13
No Pontiff or magisterium or sacred tradition is invoked to verify God's Word. That's an important point not to be missed. The supreme authority is the Lord's 'own testimony' to His Word. No further appeal is possible. He didn't swear by the Priests, He swore by Himself. Nothing else could confirm God's own Word but God Alone. Other than Himself, His Holy Word stands alone as the supreme authority. Truly, what other authority is on a par? ..Higher? ..Better? ..from a better platform? ..more Trustworthy? ..infallible? ..the answer is None! Which is why Jesus always directed those with questions and objections to His teachings in the scriptures. Both ancient theology endorses this, as well as the New Testament Church. As in the past, God's people may discern truth by going directly to the scriptures. As God explained in the parable when confronted with the question of how they would believe.
Luke 16:29
And likewise, Christ did not direct anyone to secondary explications or extra-Biblical Hebrew traditions (though plentiful) as authoritative norms, but He directed them continually to examine the Word of God itself. He alternately declares, 'read the scriptures, it is written, search the scriptures, have ye not read, as saith the scriptures, that the scriptures might be fulfilled, as saith Isaiah, etc., etc." And in the New testament, the exhortation to the authority of scripture continues, (Rom. 15:4; Eph. 6:17; II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:3). Scripture commends those who examine the written revelation of God (as open minded, and more noble -Acts 17:11) and illustrates that Christians have the ability to rightly divide and interpret scripture apart from any (supposed) infallible interpreter whether Church or pontiff (II Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11). Interpretation must come from the Word of God. As a little child humbly, honestly and simplistically asked:
And all God's people said, ...A M E N ! Out of the mouth of babes!
For knowing the nature of man, that indeed is a good question. Again, note the manner in which Christ refuted error. It was, 'God said thus, but you say..' (Matt. 15:4-5; 10-11). That was the manner in which He drew a clear, concise contrast between the written Word of God and the traditions of men. Let that be a lesson unto us.
1st Peter 2:21
We can readily understand the frustration of those who are indoctrinated and thus think Christians should listen to the Roman church instead of God, and how it's annoying to them when we won't bow to that church authority. But there is a very clear warning about making man the authority in the Church in 2nd Thessalonians 2. Man must never sit to 'rule' in the Temple of God 'as if' he was God. Only God can rule (have ultimate authority) over the Church. And God's Word is the Bible. And so really, what's to debate?
The fact is, the only way that man is going to stand with the righteous, overcoming in Christ, is if he has 'kept' the Word of God as truth, and the word of man as error. Belief in the Word of God over man's words of tradition is what separates true believers from false ones. It's what separates those who can and will be deceived, from the Elect who can never be deceived into false Gospels. We know what the truth is because we know 'where' the truth is. It's in the Word from God alone, not in the men who lead the Church. The faithful Church is the witness of God's truth. It bears testimony to God's truth, and that's what makes it the Pillar and ground of this truth. Faithfulness to truth (which is God's Word, not man's word) makes us as a tree planted by the rivers of life. God's Word is true. As it is written,
Romans 3:3
The truth is in God's Word, not in the words of Pontiff J., or Pastor Brown, or Church tradition 88, or Tony Warren. The Truth is in God's Word. And if we don't read it in God's Word, then it's not God's Word. In determining which word has the authority, let God be true, and every man a Liar.
Let us therefore remember that scripture declares that if we build upon a foundation that is not the Word of God, and will not hear God's Word, then we build on a foundation which will crumble when the winds blow and the rains come (luke 6:47-49). God likens us then to a foolish man. The wise in Christ will build upon God's Word alone as the supreme authority. Sola Scriptura! A firm foundation on the Word of God, which will never fall.
May the Lord who is Gracious and merciful above all, give us the wisdom and understanding to come to the truth of His most Holy Word.
A m e n !
Copyright ©1998 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! http://members.aol.com/twarren10/
-------------------------*---------------------------
Feel free to copy, duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone who would like a copy, as long as the above copyright notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original form, unedited, and without cost.
Created 8/3/98 / Last Modified 3/23/02
1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible
Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.
2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also
"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:
"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).
This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:
"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).
If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:
"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).
6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition
Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.
The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:
a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).
b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).
So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:
"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).
If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.
So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.
9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding
If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:
"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).
"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).
He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."
10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position
When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.
This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.
But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."
But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses
Not according to Him:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat. 5:17-19)Nor according to the Jerusalem church:
"Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the Torah." (Acts 21:20)Nor according to Sha'ul, aka Paul:
Do we then make void the Torah through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish (uphold, keep) the Torah. . . What shall we say then? Is the Torah sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the Torah. . . Wherefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. (Rom 3:31, 7:7 & 12)Nowhere in the NT does Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus Christ, or any Apostle say that the Torah has been done away with or nailed to the Cross--Sha'ul says that "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us" was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14); not the Torah, but our bill of offenses against it. In the same way, he writes that Yeshua the Messiah "hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written" (Gal. 3:13).
In other words, the penalties, the curses, that the Torah pronounces against all who do not keep its every command all fell on Yeshua, being nailed to the Cross as a criminal's placard which told all his crimes. Because of this, those who trust in the Messiah are no longer "under the law"--that is, under its penalties, weighed down with the burden of attempting to keep it legalistically for fear of punishment. In a sense, we have been given "diplomatic immunity," and like a diplomat who is not under the law of the United States, can no longer be prosecuted for it.
However, just because an ambassador can claim immunity, does that mean that he should blatantly and flagrantly violate the laws of the country he is visiting? No. Neither should we who are ambassadors for the Messiah sin flagrantly--and where there is sin in our lives, we have the duty to repent of it, stop sinning.
So what defines sin? According to Sha'ul, the Torah still does (Rom. 7:7). Indeed, this is implicit in the very Hebrew words involved: Torah is the noun form of the Hebrew word yarah, which literally means "to hit the mark." Sin is chattah, which means "to miss the mark."
To one extent or another, all Christians recognize that much of the Torah is still in effect: After all, it is the Torah which commands us to "Love YHVH your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your might" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." When Yeshua said that all the Torah and Prophets hang on these two commandments, He was saying that every command of God is simply explaining how we should go about loving God and our fellow human beings. If we love our neighbor, how can we steal from him, murder him, or commit adultery with his wife?
Likewise, if we love God, should we not observe the times and rituals He told us to? Do not Christians observe baptism and the Lord's Supper out of love for Christ? Have not Christians petititioned the government in many counties to not allow liquor sales on Sunday--and in the past, to force a "sabbath" rest on Sunday--out of love for Christ?
How then can it be said that one who believes that God's Appointed Times--Sabbath, Passover, the Day of Atonement, etc.--and God's specific commands like wearing tassels with a blue thread at the corners of our clothing is somehow a legalist, while the Christian who observes Christmas and Easter (indeed, who has made them Federal holidays) and who wears a WWJD bracelet is not?
The argument is not over whether God has a Law that we are expected to follow even while we are under Grace--no one argues that under Grace we may murder freely--the argument is merely on the specific commands that make up that Torah.
You never know where Jean Chauvin will show up! I was in San Antonio a few weeks ago and felt guilty for leaving him at home when I drove by Cornerstone Church (Hagee's Palace).
very powerful! Thank you for that outline!
I think a lot of this argument stems from the misunderstanding of Tradition. There's a difference between Tradition and tradition. Tradition being the oral word of God passed down through the apostles. The only scripture the apostles had to go on was Old Testament. This is only logical. Which is why as much as I study I see no way that sola scriptura works. The bible did just appear the day after Jesus was resurrected... what were the apostles doing after that? Preaching...the ORAL word of God. That is what the Catholic church teaches of Sacred Tradition. They were only forced to write things down when heretics decided to not believe in those Tradition teachings. That's why there is such a strong belief among Protestants that things were 'made-up'. Nope, they were always there, they just weren't in contention until someone decided to start a new line of thinking and the church was forced to write it down.
I have done many bible studies, all protestant bible studies. All made my Catholic faith stronger. For me, and I am speaking for me here... for me, Sola Scriptura = Anarchy. "if I don't like the way you interpret something, I'll just start my own church"... and 500 years later we have how many thousands of denominations? To interpret scripture without Tradition scares the daylights out of me. It's how we end up with 'christian denominations' saying homosexuality is okay... because they decide that the holy spirit gave them the authority to interpret scripture themselves. How scary it would be if the the American public were allowed to take the Constitution and interpret any way they want...they could start all different kinds of local governments... surely it would weaken us.
However, as logical as that all seems to me. I really don't think God wants us fighting over it. I love C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". His analogy to the "Hall" of Christians. Our goal as Christians should be, by our actions, to guide people to that hall. The doors from the hall should not be argued over lest we scare any nonbelievers completely away.
I continue to have strong relationships with my Protestant friends. We learn from each other.
The Catholic church has set up a self-perpetuating system based on nothing else other than the fact than "because we said so."
Bible: "For thou shall worship no other god."
Worship, in the biblical sense, means to make obeisance, to beseech, or to stoop towards in a manner intended to indicate such obeisance. It does not mean to carry a statue around. Catholics do that towards no Saint, including Mary. Nonetheless, Catholics do take care not to accidentally break the first/first-and-second commandment. Lest any inclination in any Catholic's heart be to regard honor (and we ARE commanded in the bible to give due honor) as a favor, we must not honor any soul whose will may not be in full and complete union with Christ. This is why Catholics define certain deceased as Saints. It is not to deny the likelihood of great, living Christians as being saints, but to ascertain that a given departed soul's will is one with Christ.
Of course, you all would understand that if you didn't follow those who rejected Christ in censoring out seven books of the bible, and steadfastly ignoring seven others which were once censored by Luther but later restored.
That is, seven books, and parts of two more (Esther and Daniel).
>> The Catholic church has set up a self-perpetuating system based on nothing else other than the fact than "because we said so." <<
Yes! The office was given to St. Peter firstly, and to the apostles, collectively, that they DO get to say so! Jesus very plainly told Peter that he had such authority! He was given the keys to the kingdom, the mark of a regent. And the office of regent, to fulfill its function, was always handed down until the return of the King. So yes, the Pope does get to say, "because I said so." Because he has the power given to him by Christ, which every Protestant claims for himself: to declare what is bound and loosed in Heaven and on Earth.
All the books of the Bible, all bibles, are there because the Catholic church weeded through all the written works that were floating out there during those times and made cross references to what did not concur with Apostalic Tradition. If what was written did not agree with Apostalic Tradition it wasn't put in the Bible. So I would have to say that, like it or not, Sola Scriptura is based on Catholic Tradition.
Like I said earlier, I'm glad Proddies were the dominant force in the colonies. If it had been RCs we'd still be hearing what a great tradition a monarchy is and sending taxes to England.
Before citing thousands of denominations as a result of sola scriptura, you might want to check this out: http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm
Thank you, Kerryusama04, for showing how preposterous Sola Scriptura is as a doctrine.
The Catholic Church insists that Prima Sabbati means "first of the week." Kerry insists that it doesn't. And he can make what seems like a bold promise that no-one can prove that the bible makes Sunday the new Sabbath, because if anyone does point out to him where it does, he just insists, "That's not what that REEEEALLY means!"
It doesn't matter how blunt and obvious the bible states something. Not only did Jesus say, "truly, truly, I tell you this: Unless you eat of my flesh, and drink of my blood, you shall have no life within you," but it lost him most of his disciples, because they all knew what he meant. Just as the Church has held since three hundred years before the Church selected which books comprised the infallible scripture. And yet, Protestants, despite this very plainly worded, bluntly stated, passage insists, "That's not what he means!"
You insist, "That's not what he means," when he called Peter the Rock (Cephas, not Petrus, as the bible also plainly points out) apon which the Chuch would be built.
You insist, "That's not what he means," pretty much whenever the bible says something you don't like, and yet you create threads like this one to conjure out of thin air false assertions that the bible contains the doctrine of sola scriptura, despite the fact that the gospel was preached for decades before anyone wrote it down.
And, thus, Jesus, foreseeing the hardness of the human heart, gave, through the workings of the Holy Spirit, the gift of authority to one man, Peter, and to his disciples, to settle such disagreements.
So you, Gamecock, and you, Kerryusama, believe what you want to believe, and imagine that in spite of your disagreement, somehow you each have the charism of being correct in your intepretation of the bible.
Because you have a common enemy, you'll ignore these differences. But Gamecock, pay attention to what Kerryusama's entire argument is, as revealed in other threads: that your Sunday worship is REALLY teh work of pagans who tricked the Christian church into worshipping their demonic, pagan gods.
All the books of the Bible, all bibles, are there because the Catholic church weeded through all the written works that were floating out there during those times and made cross references to what did not concur with Apostalic Tradition. If what was written did not agree with Apostalic Tradition it wasn't put in the Bible. So I would have to say that, like it or not, Sola Scriptura is based on Catholic Tradition.
111 posted on 08/15/2006 11:45:15 AM MDT by Krista33
and the Ru'ach HaKodesh had nothing to do with it?
b'shem Yahu'shua
>> and the Ru'ach HaKodesh had nothing to do with it? <<
Probably not, since Ru'ach HaKodesh sounds like a Hebrew word, and the people who selected the books to include in the Christian bible spoke Greek. But, then, I suppose, if you really expected an answer, you'd be a mensch and use English translations , rather than having fun showing off, "ooo! I know some Hebrew phrases!"
Hey cocky :)
It comes down to authority, as always. Your church was founded by a heretic. My church was founded by Jesus. Apostolic succession and all that. He handed the keys not to Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or the King of England, but to Peter -- and his successors.
What's your pastor's pedigree? :)
The call of the Holy Spirit.
Conversely, there is certainly nothing in scripture that says that Baptism is for adults only, and that children should not be baptized. However, in several places in the New Testament whole families or households were baptized, which most certainly included children, because later writers such as Origen, Cyprian and Augustine confirm it as the historical practice of the Church.
Paul says that baptism is the "circumcision of Christ."
and in Him (you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Colossians 2:11-12
Cordially,
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.