Sola Scriptura: Death by a Thousand (or Ten) Qualifications?

Doug Beaumont.org ^ | 7/3/11 | Doug Beaumont

[marshmallow]

Introduction

The doctrine of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”) began its life as a concern for proper authority in religious matters. By “authority” here I mean something like “that which has the right to compel agreement.” A religious authority would be one which has the right to compel faith (orthodoxy) and actions (orthopraxy). This does not mean that one cannot make free choices in these matters, but simply that in cases of faith and action, a person’s refusal to agree with the authority would signal an objective wrong on the part of the one refusing to submit (should that person wish to remain in the religion at least).

It seems clear that all human authority in religious matters would be superseded by God’s. Now, since God is clearly the authority for a Christian, and since the only record of God’s communication that all Christian bodies believe to be inspired is the Bible, the Bible must have the top spot as far as authorities go. This was the original sense of sola scriptura – the Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and actions – not that it was the only authority (cf. The Shape of Sola Scriptura or Getting the Reformation Wrong).

Why call it “Scripture alone” then? Because all of the Protestant “sola’s” are contrasts with what the reformers saw as distortions in Roman Catholic theology. Salvation through “Christ alone” (solus Christus) obviously did not mean that, given Christ, salvation simply followed. Rather, “Christ alone” meant something like “Jesus Christ, without the addition of something else [church, priesthood, etc.], is all that is required to make salvation possible.” The reformers taught that faith is also required of course – but not faith plus works (thus, sola fide). Sola scriptura meant that Scripture alone was the ultimate authority in religious matters as opposed to including Church tradition or the teachings of men.

While sola scriptura is still sometimes expressed along the lines of Scripture alone having “supreme and final authority in faith and life” ( source), many evangelical Christians couch sola scriptura more in terms of denying any authority outside of the Bible. If Scripture alone is the ultimate authority, then it is thought that to follow that a “Bible-only” methodology for doing theology will keep one safe from the errors of mere human teaching. (For a treatment of the original, and more conservative idea, see Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura – and for critical responses to this view see CTC or NLG). The first page of a Google search brought up two representative statements of this popular understanding of sola scriptura:

“Scripture alone is called God’s word (cf. Jn.10:35; 2 Tim.3:16; 2 Pt.1:20), and in 1 Cor. 4:6 we are specifically told ‘not to go beyond what is written.’. . . Not once did Jesus speak well about traditions. Neither did Peter nor Paul as he states in Col. 2:8 ‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.’” (Source).

“The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition. The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible.” ( Source)

But can Evangelicals consistently reject extra-biblical authority? As will be made clear below, I do not think so. Bible-alone theology may sound very fine when constrained to an abstract ideal, but as Antony Flew once said, a good hypothesis can “be killed by inches, the death by a thousand qualifications.”

Even allowing that the Bible is the final and ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice, it still must be understood. That is, the Bible’s authoritative teaching resides in the message it conveys – not the physical book itself. And discovering the message of the Bible requires navigating through many layers of human interaction first. These layers of human interaction are like lenses through which the Bible’s message is seen. It seems to me, then, that to whatever degree these interpretive layers influence how one understands the Bible’s message, to that degree they have an authoritative function (at least practically speaking). This seems to introduce the very kind of human authority that the popular sense of sola scriptura claims to avoid. Below are presented ten such layers for consideration.

Linguistic Layer

The average-Evangelical-in-America-today often thinks that he “just believes his Bible” when it comes to his religious convictions. But if you asked him, “What exactly is the Bible?” he would probably answer, “The Word of God.” But the Bible he is holding almost certainly does not contain the literal words of God – at least not how he is probably thinking of them. Let’s begin here, for one important layer of authoritative reliance required for today’s Bible-believer is linguistic.

The Bible is actually a bound collection of writings written in three ancient languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and (Koine) Greek. Since our average-Evangelical-in-America-today does not understand these ancient languages fluently, the Bible he holds is almost certainly a translation of the words of God. But there is a plethora of Bible translation “versions” on the shelf of the average book store, and translation issues are not always minor. For example, are we to “abstain from all appearance of evil” as the KJV has it, or are we to “abstain from every form of evil” as modern versions state? And try looking up Matthew 17:21 or 23:14 in the NIV sometime!

So how did our average-Evangelical-in-America-today choose from among them? Was his choice authoritative? And if so, was he operating as his own authority in the matter? Or, assuming he researched these versions, would not the source(s) he consulted for his decision have, in a sense, authoritatively determined what he is going to read in his Bible? Further, how were these authorities chosen? What if they were wrong? And how could he ever find out?

Suppose our average-Evangelical-in-America-today decides that trusting some extra-biblical authority to pick his Bible version is not a safe practice – for sola scriptura says no authority outside Scripture is trustworthy enough for such a decision. There seems only one way to solve the problem: stop relying on them. The only way he could authoritatively choose the best Bible version without invoking the authority of mere men would be to become an authority himself. That is, he will have to become an authority on the original languages for himself. But, of course, any teacher of biblical languages will herself be another extra-biblical authority. In fact, it is authoritative linguists that (hopefully) were responsible for the different Bible versions themselves. But if these authorities cannot be trusted to produce trustworthy Bible translations, how can they be trusted to teach others how to do so?

Further, how long will it take to achieve an authoritative linguistic status? Given the training available at many schools, 7-10 years is probably wildly conservative (and that’s if one does not add in Aramaic and any other cognate languages that factor into translation). This also assumes that our average-Evangelical-in-America-today can study full time.

Translational-Interpretative Layer

However, even after learning vocabulary and grammar, the fact is that words do not change into thoughts without interpretation. Even if our average-Evangelical-in-America-today learns the original languages, this does not mean that interpretation is not part of the process of translation. Translation involves far more than simple word replacement. Just like in English, the biblical languages do not come with neat, immutable dictionaries. Even theologically significant words like “save,” “justification,” “sanctification,” and “resurrection” are not always used the same way in Scripture.

To really translate the original languages correctly, one must be familiar with how that language was used at the time of the original writing. To do so, the other writings of the same chronological, geographical, and cultural background must be studied. Indeed, this is how the standard lexicons derive their data. But who can know which lexicon to trust? Biases come into play with lexicons as well (consider BAGD’s treatment of glossa where, after noting the term simply means “languages,” there is suddenly “no doubt about the thing referred to, namely the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy”). Further, room must be left for linguistic innovation. The Bible was written in living languages, thus it is entirely possible that subtle usage changes were being made that are lost on later readers relying on typical usage.

But again, for sake of argument let us stipulate that our average-Evangelical-in-America-today has somehow overcome these issues too. After gaining unbiased insight into linguistic usage that even experts might have missed, he now needs to consider an even more difficult interpretive issue.

Hermeneutical-Philosophical Layer

Language and translation study may give our average-Evangelical-in-America-today knowledge of what ancient texts say, but understanding what they mean is another issue.

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation of meaning. Is there an over-arching hermeneutic that works for the whole Bible? Do we simply take all words literally (at “face value”), or are some non-literal understandings actually more accurate? Literal hermeneutic theory might seem safest, but of course this will obscure any non-literal texts. The ancient Church had a four-fold hermeneutic. They believed for centuries that the Bible had literal, allegorical, moral, and analogical senses. While this four-fold hermeneutic is often decried today, consider the difficulty faced in taking many of the prophetic fulfillments of Jesus’ birth with a literal/grammatical/historical-only hermeneutic (e.g., Isa. 7:14 cf. Mt. 1:18-25; Jer. 31:15 cf. Mt. 2:16-18; or Hos. 11:1 cf. Mt. 2:13-15). Non-Christians have field days with the original “intent” of these passages and their alleged misuse by the gospel writers.

Few seriously argue that Scripture can be taken in a purely literalistic fashion, for at least some of the Bible is poetry, metaphor, hyperbole, etc. But recognition of these things requires extra-biblical knowledge – for the Bible itself does not always signal these elements. So, in many cases, hermeneutics becomes philosophy of language. But the Bible is not a useful source for coming to one’s philosophy of language either, for one must already have a philosophy of language before the Bible can be interpreted!

Further, literary devices like hyperbole and metaphor rely entirely on one’s experience of reality to recognize. But reality, too, must be interpreted. Thus, correct notions of metaphysics are necessary if we are to avoid subjectivity in biblical interpretation. Thus, one must get one’s metaphysics and linguistic philosophies correct before hermeneutic theories can be properly evaluated or applied. Either philosophical field could easily take up a lifetime.

But let us allow for super-human accomplishments on the part of our average-Evangelical-in-America-today, and grant that perhaps his view of reality and language are exactly correct, and his views are completely uncluttered by inaccurate understandings of his personal experiences. The authorities involved in such pursuits (even if they include only the philosopher himself) are going to once again be mostly (if not entirely) extra-biblical.

And the work is not over yet.

Historical-Cultural Layer

Abstract language meaning might be objectively understood via a proper hermeneutic, but its specific referents can remain unknown. The particular realities that words pick out are not shared by the biblical writers and our average-Evangelical-in-America-today, for they are thousands of years, and thousands of miles, removed from one another.

Sometimes important cultural details are sometimes lost to history. For example, what exactly is the “head covering” Paul refers to in his letter to the Corinthians, and what was its purpose? What is this “baptism for the dead” Paul refers to in the same letter, and what was its purpose? Mere knowledge of language, even coupled to a good hermeneutic, cannot answer these questions. And sometimes we do not even know a question should be asked. When Jesus warns the Laodiceans to be either hot or cold, not many later readers recognized the import of those two temperatures to a city without its own water supply.

A thorough knowledge of history and culture is necessary to avoid anachronism and other such errors, and to catch subtle remarks that the original readers would have recognized. In the New Testament, for example, we come upon scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, synagogues, and a Roman Government without much introduction or explanation in many cases. Yet none of these are known from the Old Testament. The Bible causes these issues, it does not solve them. But to whom can our average-Evangelical-in-America-today go to learn about these things if not extra-biblical authorities? Unless, of course, he simply becomes an expert on history on his own. A time machine (coupled with an anti-aging device) perhaps?

Assuming that our average-Evangelical-in-America-today somehow (miraculously?) manages to meet the above criteria, the job is still not done. For once one knows what a text says and what it means, one must then grasp what it teaches.

Applicational Layer

After discovering what a text says and what it means, it is time to get something out of it. Application answers the question, “What is the text teaching?” Here we run into more examples of Scripture not supplying easy answers.

Do the stories of people speaking in tongues in the Book of Acts teach us that believers today must do likewise? Is the head covering in 1 Corinthians a practice that has some parallel today? Does the acceptance of slavery throughout the Bible indicate that it has an acceptable place in the world today? Why do we practice the Lord’s Supper but not foot washing when Jesus commanded both during the same talk? These sorts of questions cannot be answered simply by knowing what the Bible says or means.

Discovering how the truths of Scripture apply to us today is the whole goal of Bible study – yet the Bible is rarely clear on just how to do so. Many disagreements over Christian practice do not involve issues of translation or interpretation, because knowing what the text means does not necessarily tell us what it teaches. Even in cases of prescription (rather than mere description), issues of cultural relevance, proper dispensations, audience similarity, general vs. particular commands, etc. all remain. Now subjects such as ethics, moral philosophy, theology, and others come into play. And, since it is the Bible that seems to raise the above issues, it seems that once again extra-biblical information is required.

But what if our average-Evangelical-in-America-today sought this extra-biblical information from God rather than man? Wouldn’t that solve the problem? It depends on who you ask.

Mystical Layer

The “mystical” layer is unique to this list in that it is both more and less controversial than the others – especially when it comes to authority. On the “less controversial” side, I think most Christians will agree that without the aid of God, the Scriptures cannot be fully “grasped” (I am being purposefully vague in order to make the statement general enough to be true). Now, whether this help comes in the form of direct explanation of textual meaning, divinely inspired objectivity, subjective personal application, or any of a host of other explanations – God is doing something when the faithful read His word.

The difficulty is the “more controversial” part. For one thing, there are a number of views concerning God’s role in interpretation (sometimes called “illumination”). Some believe that God only steps in to call the “close ones,” while others think they are getting a live feed from God’s mind via the pages of the Bible virtually every time they open it. In either case (and for any in between), if the Bible itself cannot settle a given view, then claiming that God’s aid sealed the deal would be to invoke divine authority for one’s own understanding. The result should be the very kind of extra-biblical authority that sola scriptura seems to seek to avoid. Further, to whatever extent God is helping out, that part of the interpretative process would seem to be free from error. But few will allow (whether theologically or pragmatically) for any infallibility being introduced into the process. For most this would smack of either infallible Catholic papal claims or charismatic prophetic craziness – neither of which comport with sola scriptura.

A more difficult fact to deal with is that while the Church underwent one or two important splits in its first 1,500 years, “sola scriptura Christianity” has managed to break itself into more than 20,000 denominations in the last 500. If God’s guidance in some way insured some allowable extra-biblical authority in understanding Scripture, then how could it be fairly determined which denomination (or, in many cases, which individual) has it? It all sounds very impressive when a preacher or teacher challenges his hearers to check his words against the Bible, personal study, or prayer – but with the abundance of interpretive options awaiting the researcher (consider, for example, the popular “multi-view” book series put out by more than one evangelical publisher), this challenge is hardly threatening.

I will leave additional theological issues with the mystical layer aside, for they do not necessarily help or hinder either side in the present consideration of sola scriptura. For now it is enough to note that whatever role God plays in the process of biblical interpretation, it does not seem to get what is needed to avoid extra-biblical authority. Even if a non-question begging sola scriptura theory of (and evidence for) mystical illumination were forthcoming, the chaotic theological results are not easily explained.

Our average-Evangelical-in-America-today will not, therefore, be able to trust in personal mystical guidance and follow sola scriptura at the same time. So for now, let’s just get back to the Bible – the one source we know we can trust.

If, that is, we really have one.

Textual Layer

Supposing that our average-Evangelical-in-America-today learns the original biblical languages so well that he can pick up an original Greek New Testament or Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament and read it as easily as he can an English translation. He has overcome all interpretive and philosophical biases, and has learned enough about history and culture to catch every nuance that an original reader would have. He is also accessing God’s mystical guidance (if it is available) without distortion. No more “Bible versions” for this average-Evangelical-in-America-today, right?

Wrong.

Unfortunately, the Bible version issue does not disappear once one masters the original languages. Now he must also choose which “original Bible” to read. For the New Testament alone he must choose between the Minority and the Majority text traditions (and there are different versions of each of these forms, such as the Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Society’s, or the Textus Receptus – each having had numerous revisions). The Old Testament, too, has some textual issues – the most notable being that the Hebrew manuscript copies (the “Masoretic” texts) that we have are much later than the original writings. There is also the Greek translation of the Old Testament (known as the Septuagint, or “LXX”) which is quoted more in the New Testament than the MT, yet sometimes differs considerably from the Hebrew texts we have.

Arguments for each of these versions abound, and have spawned their own fields of study commonly referred to as Textual Criticism. Textual Criticism deals with issues arising from the fact that we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible. What we do have are thousands of copies, some very early, that must be sorted through and compared for accuracy. As skeptics are happy to point out, few of these manuscripts agree completely. Now, this is not such a huge problem since given thousands of comparisons we can arrive at a pretty solid understanding of what the original must have said. But differences (“variants”) remain, and questions need to be answered when it comes to deciding which variants to use when producing the “original” edition. In how many manuscripts does the variant reading occur? What are the dates for these manuscripts? In what region of the world were these manuscripts found? What could have caused these varying readings? Which reading can best explain the origin of the other readings? Etc.

A lot of work, then, is needed just to produce an accurate original language Bible (assuming, of course, that the original wording has indeed been retained amongst all these disparate copies). How is our average-Evangelical-in-America-today going to choose between them? Well, unless he is willing to trust in the text-critical authorities, he’ll have to learn text criticism itself. Worse, unless he wants to trust in the people who typed up what is actually found on these ancient manuscripts, he’ll have to gain access to all of them directly, from all over the world, and make his own copies. To do otherwise would be to trust extra-biblical authorities (besides himself) with copying the words of God.

But let’s cut our average-Evangelical-in-America-today some slack and say that he does somehow gain the true perspective on text criticism and obtains his own copies of all available manuscripts. How long will it take to go through all these copies? Professionals spend their entire careers working on mere subsets of these document collections. This pushes the possibility of avoiding extra-biblical authority even farther from the already outrageous situation we have already granted to our average-Evangelical-in-America-today.

And speaking of collections – why does our average-Evangelical-in-America-today trust anyone to tell him which books he should even be including? Welcome to the canonical layer.

Canonical Layer

Despite what our average-Evangelical-in-America-today may have at once thought, he now knows that the Bible is not “a book.” Rather, it is a collection of various writings that are bound together for convenience. But who decided which books are in this collection? And how did they do so?

The official title of the biblical collection is “canon.” Now, the canon of Scripture did not begin to be solidified until the 3rd or 4th century. The Church was teaching from both oral and written traditions before that time, holding authoritative councils, writing the creeds that would determine Christian orthodoxy, and using all of these in the process of canonization. Thus, ironically, it would seem that to ignore this early extra-biblical tradition might also justify ignoring the biblical canon itself.

Is the average-Evangelical-in-America-today just as free to jettison the biblical canon as he is the traditional Church creeds and councils? Would an average-Evangelical-in-America-today feel free to dismiss certain books of the Bible if they did not sit well with him? Would he be free to add to the canon should he “feel led” to do so? If so, what is the standard by which he could or could not do so? And how would these arguments work with or against extra-biblical Church authority?

Numerous tests for canonicity have been suggested to avoid this problem, but many of them are the result of a-historical attempts at “reverse engineering” the canon. Tests include: evidence of inspiration, proper spiritual character, church edification, doctrinal accuracy, apostolic authorship or endorsement, general church acceptance, etc. The problem is that several of these rely on subjective criteria, others are objective but rely on the testimony of extra-biblical tradition for their evidence. To take just one example: the criterion of apostolicity relies on knowledge of who wrote the book in question and / or the author’s relation to an apostle. But several NT books do not name their author (e.g., the Gospels and Hebrews), and others are vague (e.g., James, Revelation). Moreover, even the books that do name their authors can only be trusted as far as they are deemed trustworthy in the first place. The Church did not accept the gospels of Thomas or of Mary – why not? The facts are that the members of the Church closest to the time of the apostles disputed the content of the NT canon, and that this disputation continued well into the Reformation (on both Catholic and Protestant sides), and disagreements of varying degrees continue right up to today. Thus the escape from extra-biblical authority sought by these tests is often lacking.

Now our average-Evangelical-in-America-today faces a critical dilemma: he’s spent years learning the languages, figuring out the best text-critical theory, and somehow obtained his own copies of all the relevant manuscripts – but he still has to trust extra-biblical authorities to even know which books belong in the Bible in the first place. But let us simply suppose once again that our average-Evangelical-in-America-today gets this one right. He nails the canon and somehow justifies his choices without any appeal to extra-biblical authority (perhaps he uses Calvin’s test of self-authenticating testimony . . . which of course is also extra-biblical). Is he done? Can he now be sure of his Bible’s teachings without relying on any outside authority?

Hardly. Indeed, he has only begun.

Traditional Layer

If the Church’s traditions are not considered authoritative, then not only are its biblical interpretations and extra-biblical teachings called into question – but so might its councils, creeds, and the canon of Scripture itself. For whatever arguments serve to create distrust in the authority of the early Church also makes other areas of orthodoxy open to criticism, and how can sola scriptura survive if we cannot be sure of what counts as “scriptura” in the first place? But many claim that the whole point of sola scriptura is to avoid traditions! Isn’t that what gets the Church into trouble in the first place?

Does Scripture teach the faithful to mistrust tradition? No, it does not. Rather, it warns of following false traditions (just like false philosophy, false religion, etc.). It’s the “false” part that is important. Claims such as the ones mentioned in the introduction concerning Scriptures’ alleged negative outlook on tradition must simply ignore other verses to remain consistent (which is made easier by the NIV translators who purposefully translated the Greek term paradosis as “traditions” in its negative contexts, and as “teachings” in its positive references!). For example, the same apostle who warned against following man-made traditions also said:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

“Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2)

Now, to be absolutely sure of one’s understanding of Christian doctrine from the Bible alone, at least three things must be the case:

First, authoritative tradition must have ceased with the apostles (to avoid the self-defeating proposition that the Bible – which teaches that traditions must be trusted – alone is trustworthy).

Second, the Bible would have to be perfectly clear in what it teaches (to avoid any possible misunderstanding, each part would have to have this clarity – for if it did not it may be the case that one part would alter another).

Third, everything the apostles wanted taught must have been recorded in Scripture (because the slightest bit of additional information could radically alter our understanding of anything else we read).

The first two points seem to be self-evidently required, but the first begs the question and is self-defeating because the Bible does not teach (at least not clearly) that authoritative tradition ceased with the apostles. If this is one’s theological position that is fine (and the theological layer is coming up!), but it must be recognized as such. As to the second criterion, the numerous and disparate interpretations of Scripture offered by the very people who proclaim its clarity seem to argue against that position. If one responds that proper hermeneutics/philosophy/ etc. are required to attain this clarity then we are back to additional layers of interpretation. The third point is even more seriously problematic for sola scriptura as it has been popularly defined, however. For even if Church tradition after the apostles is not authoritative, and even if Scriptures are perfectly clear, it would only have taken one extra sentence to change everything.

As an example, let’s consider communion (the Lord’s Supper / the Eucharist). Paul told the Corinthians concerning communion, “the rest I will set in order when I come,” (1 Cor. 11:34). Suppose that what he later said to them was, “By the way, Jesus Christ is physically present in the communion bread and wine.” That one sentence would be a game changer for interpretation of not only 1 Corinthians 11, but for John 6 and Matthew 26 as well! Now, we do not seem to know what Paul “set in order” concerning communion when he came to them later. 2 Corinthians says nothing about it. Paul does mention two other letters to the Corinthians that we do not have, so perhaps it was in those. Or maybe in the epistle that he sent to the church at Laodicea (Colossians 4:16) he said something of interpretive importance. Either way, it did not make it into the Bible – and to be 100% certain of his Bible-only understandings, our average-Evangelical-in-America-today would have to know for sure.

What we do know is that the Church held to a non-memorial-only view of communion for nearly 1,500 years. This view might not be clear from Scripture, but it is no less clear than Zwingli’s memorial-only view. How can sola scriptura solve this debate then? The same could be said for the Bishop/Elder distinction – this does not seem clear in Scripture, but it was recognized very early by the Church whose leaders were taught by the apostles. For the average-Evangelical-in-America-today, however, the early Church is not considered an authoritative source. So its tradition cannot be trusted to authoritatively solve the problem. This remains a problem even if some new bit of information surface, for these would be extra-biblical too.

Thus, even if our average-Evangelical-in-America-today can successfully demonstrate that no extra-biblical tradition is authoritative unless it accords with [his understanding of] Scripture, the issue remains. Judging extra-biblical tradition based on the Bible when the Bible is unclear is going to be a failed project. Yet for our average-Evangelical-in-America-today, it seems to be all he has to go on. Worse, in cases where extra-biblical traditions could legitimately overturn a Bible-only interpretation, then a Bible-only approach would never – even in principle – be able to authoritatively judge against extra-biblical tradition (for even apostolic teaching is extra-biblical if it did not make it into the Bible). Since such a situation is certainly possible, then given a Bible-only methodology, our average-Evangelical-in-America-today could only hope to arrive at probable interpretations. He would remain, ultimately, unsure of a great many things.

Now, mere logical possibility does not equal actual evidence. Perhaps arguments can be produced which support a contrary position, but since the Bible does not contain them, they are extra-biblical too. This should cause a problem for the popular view of sola scriptura, for these sorts of positions turn out to be not so much biblical as theological.

Theological Layer

Since the Bible does not say that it alone is trustworthy or authoritative, the idea that it is so is a theological one. In many areas holding to theological positions that are not clearly stated in the Bible is not necessarily a big problem, since many positions are based on theological speculation. Here, however, it becomes a bigger issue.

It would be incoherent to claim that the Bible alone is a trustworthy source of theological information when the Bible itself does not say that it alone is a trustworthy source of theological information. In addition, it would also turn out to be self-defeating since the Bible itself teaches that other sources of revelation exist (e.g., the principles of natural theology and law found in Rom. 1-2). And, since the Bible actually commands believers to hold to “traditions” that they “heard” (see above), it simply cannot be the case that the Bible’s position is that traditions do not become authoritative until they are written down. Something like this might be argued theologically, but it is not a teaching directly supportable from the words of the Bible. The same could be said for limiting authoritative “traditions” to the words the Apostles left us in Scripture – this is not what the early Church taught, and it pre-dated the New Testament itself.

But even our average-Evangelical-in-America-today (who stopped being average a LONG time ago!) could defend these theological positions, some extra-biblical authority is in the picture – for the Bible does not teach them directly. Even doctrines said to be derived from Scripture are still adding something to the mere words of the Bible and are, to that extent, extra-biblical. And once again, although attractive in the abstract, the ideal that theology can be directly supported from Scripture alone and achieve the authority the Church desires is a position held by the very theologians who disagree the most over theology! (Consider the popular Counterpoints series.)

And this brings us back to the original problem.

Conclusion

Bible-only theology sounds fine as long as it remains an abstract principle (or slogan). The reality is much messier. At least the following authoritative layers would need to be peeled back before a strict Bible-only theological method could even theoretically succeed:

Linguistic – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative translators.

Translational-Interpretational – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative interpreters.

Hermeneutical-Philosophical – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative philosophers.

Historical-Cultural – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative historians.

Applicational – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative teachers.

Mystical – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative personal views.

Textual – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative text critics.

Canonical – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative Church decisions.

Traditional – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative traditions.

Theological – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative theologians.

In the real world, reliance on extra-biblical authority is found at nearly every step of Bible study. Even if our average-Evangelical-in-America-today had the time, materials, and intellect for such an endeavor, he would still realistically have to rely on a host of extra-biblical authorities (teachers, authors, researchers, principles, etc.) to learn all that he would need to know to become a trustworthy [yet extra-biblical, and thus still fallible!] authority himself.

As stated in the introduction, it seems to me that to whatever degree these layers of human interaction influence how one understands the Bible’s message, to that degree they have a practical authoritative function. (Perhaps independent tests are available to assess each layer’s authoritative status without engaging in question-begging or misplaced confidence. If so, then these need to be spelled out more clearly.) Thus, it seems clear that the Bible in our hands can only be depended upon to deliver authoritative truth to the degree that the authorities at each layer can be trusted to deliver authoritative truth.

Now, if sola scriptura is understood as simply teaching that the Bible “alone is of supreme and final authority in faith and life,” then these problems may be avoided, for this would at least admit to the possibility (if not the necessity) of additional authorities. Under this view, sola scriptura can operate alongside extra-biblical authorities without necessarily placing any of them at a level that the Bible alone occupies. The pertinent question then becomes when these authorities can be considered trustworthy (when they are considered at all).

[LearnsFromMistakes]

Paul is speaking for the Church

I think ya lost me there. But that is ok, I don't think it is a big deal.

[D-fendr]

thanks very much for your reply.

I don't think it is a big deal.

To me the big deal is this is the Body of Christ, the Church as Christ established it. I think with the concept of sola scriptura it is "me, the Bible and Christ." I believe this is very far off, and, in addition to being at variance to what Christ established, it also results in great variance in doctrine and practice resulting in a variety of views of who we are, who God is and what our relationship to God and each other is and should be.

This, I think, is the crux of Christianity, and all religions for that matter.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

You caught me. I agree it is big-ish deal, but that isn’t what this thread is about. I was hoping you would respond to the first part of my response, not the second. But, like I said, that isn’t what this thread is about.

Jesus prayed for us to become one as he/father are one. That will happen, but it probably won’t be what most people want it to be.

[pgyanke]

No, God and His Word (The Scriptures) are one and the same.

Close... but not quite. Jesus is the Word made flesh. He instructed His Apostles to make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is Tradition (with a capital T) that was handed directly from Christ to the Apostles. We only know of it because it was recorded years later. However, nowhere was it recorded that they were to write Scripture. If we take Sola Scriptura literally, that would invalidate it!

We follow the Word, which is Christ, in Spirit, in Scripture and in the flesh. We do not elevate one part to being the whole part.

[Iscool]

It's useless to argue about, though, since the majority of people realize it's far easier to rationalize any behavior they want to indulge in than it is to change their behavior. As their own final authority on the meaning of Scriptures, there's no need for them to bother changing. Churches ordain queers, marry queers, and proclaim universal salvation, all based on their interpretation of Scriptures.

True...And your religion provides the same incorrect 'private interpretation' as everyone else...

You got priests wearing what appear to be a combination of attire from the OT Temple period mixed with pagan religious priests, and you try to set up your religious heiarchy the same as it was done in the OT...

For you guys, the veil of the Temple has never been ripped in two...

Your religion is full of OT legalism...

When members are getting tats while in Vegas anyway, the same church preaches about the freedom we have in Christ that allows such things. I'm sure everyone can think of their own examples as well.

Just because you guys don't believe God, it doesn't make this is untrue...You can't change the truth by your private interpretation...

The bible says not to get tattoos...But Jesus will not disown his own children for getting a tattoo...Bible says it's lawful to get a tattoo but it is not expedient...

We are under Grace, NOT the law...

[MarkBsnr]

And your religion provides the same incorrect 'private interpretation' as everyone else...

Except for the Church of Iscool (population one). It has the only correct interpretation and is correcting 2000 years of Scriptural error, right?

You got priests wearing what appear to be a combination of attire from the OT Temple period mixed with pagan religious priests, and you try to set up your religious heiarchy the same as it was done in the OT...

And after all we've tried to teach you over the years... Well, the saying is appropriate - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The bible says not to get tattoos...But Jesus will not disown his own children for getting a tattoo...Bible says it's lawful to get a tattoo but it is not expedient...

Where do you get this stuff? The Bible says not to get tattoos, but where does it say that it's lawful but not expedient? Expedient? Do you know what expedient means?

We are under Grace, NOT the law...

So you can do anything you want and still have eternal salvation? Planning on hitching a ride on the Reformed limousine to Heaven?

[D-fendr]

You caught me. I agree it is big-ish deal, but that isn’t what this thread is about. I was hoping you'd respond..

I really wasn't attempting a gotcha. I'll try to respond to the first part, which if I'm understanding correctly, is about Paul, the Lord's Day, Sabbath.

My response is that it was a big deal that this wasn't a big deal. :)

I'll explain: Romans is Paul writing to two different groups in Rome. The Jewish converts and the gentile converts. They were severely split on doctrine. Did one have to be a Jew, were the Jewish practices no longer in effect? What was the relationship of Jews in the New Covenant? Etc. etc.

This was a very big deal, it was to be the pivot upon which Christianity turned. Paul is resolving a major division of critical importance to the future of the Church. My point is that Paul and the Apostles had authority to decide what is the true Christian belief and faith and soteriology. Big deals.

We don't appreciate it perhaps; but we still have these divisions. We have messianic judaism, nestorianims, modalism, etc. All the heterodoxy and divisions the Church has dealt with in the past are with us anew.

And they will be so long as the Church is a single individual with his own determination of Scripture.

Jesus prayed for us to be One. He established the manner and means for this.

I appreciate your courteous discussion complete with disagreement very much.

[Iscool]

Do you know what expedient means?

Sure do...And so did Paul when he said/wrote it...

Except for the Church of Iscool (population one). It has the only correct interpretation and is correcting 2000 years of Scriptural error, right?

The scripture has never been in error...It's your religion's private interpretation of it that is in error...

So you can do anything you want and still have eternal salvation? Planning on hitching a ride on the Reformed limousine to Heaven?

Nope...It's going to more like Rocket Man...

I think the problem with your not understanding this is due to the fact that Catholics excuse sin...They don't acknowledge it...

Telling little lies is not sin...Being overweight is not a sin...The list goes on and on...But yet you guys are expecting a shot at heaven, possibly...You guys (and we) continually sin and expect to get away with it...Fortunately we are under grace and have a forgiving God...

[MarkBsnr]

Do you know what expedient means?

So Paul said that it was okay to get tattoos? Your Scripture gets more and more novel all the time.

Except for the Church of Iscool (population one). It has the only correct interpretation and is correcting 2000 years of Scriptural error, right?

The scripture has never been in error...It's your religion's private interpretation of it that is in error...

Ah so; well since you said that everyone's interpretation is wrong, and I assume that you are claiming to be right, that my point still stands. How do you claim to be right and everyone else wrong?

So you can do anything you want and still have eternal salvation? Planning on hitching a ride on the Reformed limousine to Heaven?

Nope...It's going to more like Rocket Man...

Will you have to wear a bad wig when you ascend with your partner?

I think the problem with your not understanding this is due to the fact that Catholics excuse sin...They don't acknowledge it...

If Catholics excuse sin, then they must acknowledge it. Your dialogue becomes more fascinating the more that we converse.

Telling little lies is not sin...Being overweight is not a sin...The list goes on and on...But yet you guys are expecting a shot at heaven, possibly...You guys (and we) continually sin and expect to get away with it...Fortunately we are under grace and have a forgiving God...

It just gets better and better. Telling lies is a sin. Being overweight is not a sin - unless your special Bible tells you so. So, you are under Grace, are you? A scary thought...

[Mr Rogers]

Here is a simple test by application of Sola Scriptura:

Is there a Purgatory, where we burn after death until we are good enough for heaven, and can the Pope shorten our stay there by years - hundreds of years - in exchange for our doing something ‘good’ today?

Well, scripture says:

“5For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18Therefore encourage one another with these words.”

To repeat:

“And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.”

And in 1 Corinthians we read, “51Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.”

Hmmm...in the twinkling of an eye, we shall be changed, caught up in the air and always be with the Lord.

That sure doesn’t SOUND like Purgatory, or that we need a Pope to grant us early release from the fires of Purgatory.

So what do you believe? The Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, or the words of God - His “breath”?

[LearnsFromMistakes]

My point is that Paul and the Apostles had authority to decide what is the true Christian belief and faith and soteriology.

That gets back to the earlier point - you said Paul was writing for 'the Church'. These men often 'establish their credentials' when writing these letters, but I never see them represent themselves as agents from or of 'the Church'. Servants, called, elder, apostle, chosen...maybe 'apostle' should have been capitalized (as a title would be), but I have never seen that (in the bible).

Anyway... I guess I have never considered it 'within their authority' or 'part of their job'. I see that Paul 'heard from God' and communicated that truth. It wasn't his 'interpretation', but 'God's heart in the matter'. In other places they write 'it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit'. They were hearing from God, and recording it. I think that is quite different than 'interpretation'.

These discussions can be civil, until someone takes offense...then it can get ugly...Until then, I always learn a lot.

[MarkBsnr]

Here is a simple test by application of Sola Scriptura:

Is there a Purgatory, where we burn after death until we are good enough for heaven, and can the Pope shorten our stay there by years - hundreds of years - in exchange for our doing something ‘good’ today?

False premise. Once we leave this life, we exit out of time. There is no time frame. There is no 'hundreds of years'. But let us see what Scripture actually says.

Romans 3: 21 6 But now 7 the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.

However we also have:

Revelation 21: 26 The treasure and wealth of the nations will be brought there, 27 but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Nothing unclean. Paul tells us that all men are in a state of sin (impurity). Yet nothing unclean will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore there is a process of cleansing. What is that process?

1 Corinthians 3: 12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day 7 will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. 14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. 15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire.

The works that men build upon that are other than Christ are of sin. Impurity. Unclean. They must be burned out.

Hebrews 12: 28 Therefore, we who are receiving the unshakable kingdom should have gratitude, with which we should offer worship pleasing to God in reverence and awe. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

A consuming fire. Our sins are burned out of us.

Matthew 5: 25 Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. 26 Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.

Purgatory is a process and not a place. There is no time involved since we will have already passed to the hereafter.

Prayers for those who pass through Purgatory are always applicable, since these people have passed out of time into eternity. Eternally with God. This is Scripture. You're welcome. :)

[johngrace]

Nice explaining!

[sasportas]

The totalitarian Roman Catholic system, with its interposition of popes and priests, the latter in which confession is made to, is addressed in the thread “Globalism, Tribalism and false reality” in the FR News/Activism section. I invite everyone to read it. Here is a quote from it:

“Even the globalist hostility to religious dogmas can be sheeted home to the Christian teaching that man was created as an individual by God in His own image, with individual rights inalienable at the hands of worldly governments, including the right to commune directly with the Creator without the interposition of a human intermediary in the form of a priest or pope. Such ideas are anathema to those hell bent on people control.”

All one has to do to see the truth on the Papacy vs the word of God issue, is substitute Papists for the “tribalists, the globalists, and collectivists “hell bent on people control,” in the article, and simple faith in the word of God for the individualists.

[Mr Rogers]

“Paul tells us that all men are in a state of sin (impurity). Yet nothing unclean will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore there is a process of cleansing.”

Wrong. All have sinned, and fallen short - but Jesus is the righteousness of God for us.

Read it again:

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation [”to appease or make well disposed”] by his blood, to be received by faith.

This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

God Himself is our justifier if we are in Christ. Yes, all have sinned - but through faith, God’s wrath is appeased. He is now “well disposed” to us, if we are in Christ.

We are clean in Christ. “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—

and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” - Ephesians 2

In Christ, we are already seated in the heavenly places - if we remain in Christ. BTW - “in Christ” is one of the most powerful and frequently ignored phrases in the scriptures!

“Therefore there is a process of cleansing. What is that process?”

Well, the personal process of cleansing is NOT found in 1 Cor 3, where he speaks of the Church:

“9For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.

10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.”

Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church. Anyone who builds on it poorly will have his shoddy workmanship exposed - “become manifest” [”readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain”]

And the person who has built up the Church poorly will, after having his shoddy workmanship revealed to all, will still be saved - only, he will not “receive a reward”.

There is NOTHING here about Purgatory. It is not discussing personal sanctification, but rewards or the lack thereof for those building the church.

“A consuming fire. Our sins are burned out of us.”

No. the ‘consuming fire’ is for those who reject Him. In context:

“25See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven...28Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, 29for our God is a consuming fire.”

It agrees with the truth taught by John the Baptist (must be a good guy, eh?):

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

We can be baptized (immersed) in the Holy Spirit (”gather his wheat into the barn”) or with fire (”the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”)

“Purgatory is a process and not a place. There is no time involved since we will have already passed to the hereafter.”

Umm...well, from what the Apostle said, it must be pretty short, because in the twinkling of an eye, we will join Jesus in the air as he returns, to be with him forever.

Catholic doctrine states: “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.”

Wrong, it is the blood of Jesus that purifies us. No suffering we do redeems our sins, only Jesus.

In life, in this body, we need to be sanctified - made separate, which is what holy means. Burdened with this mortal body, and surrounded by the sins of the old world, we need to separate from it - sanctification.

But when we die, our body is exchanged for a new immortal one, and the old world passes away and we will be instantly forever with the Lord. There is nothing left to be sanctified from.

And sanctification is NOT a cleansing of our sin, but a separating from the evil of this world. There is no more sanctification to do when we die.

“24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

When Christ returns, it will NOT be to deal with our sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

“And every [Jewish] priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”

then he adds,

“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” - Heb 10

In all this there is no hint that those redeemed {”to buy or pay off; clear by payment”] have any futher payment to make.

The Apostles COULD have said, “after death we will undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” - but they didn’t. And Paul said he taught the full counsel of God - yet he forgot to mention that after we die, we will suffer to purify ourselves from the temporal punishment of sin.

That is why Purgatory is a good example of Sola Scriptura. No one reading scripture would ever guess at Purgatory. There is no whisper of it in scripture.

Those who give greater weight to Tradition will allow Tradition to tell them about a place missing from God’s Word.

That is the essence of Sola Scriptura - will our teachings conform to scripture, or will we twist scripture to conform it to our traditions?

[D-fendr]

That gets back to the earlier point - you said Paul was writing for 'the Church'. These men often 'establish their credentials' when writing these letters, but I never see them represent themselves as agents from or of 'the Church'.

I see your point here. Paul in particular seems a bit sensitive about his credentials. But, see, the very need for credentials infers authority.

If you read his letters to the various Church bodies, there are a few places where it's clear he's just speaking for himself, but these aren't doctrinal matters. When he corrects the congregation saying in effect: "some of you do this, some of you think this, but I tell you it is like this... and if you don't do this (discern the body for example) then you're in a heap of bad stuff.."

He is in short telling them: "I have the authority to teach and correct you, and this is what the Church, the Body of Christ is, how we worship and what we believe."

The other example I gave earlier is the first Council, at Jerusalem. They were not deciding for themselves, but for the Church as a whole. They did not create separate churches there, nor even consider opening it up to each individual. This manner and method started with Christ choosing and giving authority to his Apostles, and continued through the major councils, the determination of the canon, etc.

The very idea of sola scriptura is, relatively, a very recent, um, notion. :)

Thanks again for your courteous replies.

[D-fendr]

No one reading scripture would ever guess at Purgatory.

au contraire...

[Jvette]

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles here. We, who were not alive and therefore did not walk with Him, have no need to be reminded of anything He said, as we were not there when He said it.

The Gospels are the record of Jesus’ time with the Apostles and disciples.

John tells us in his gospel, chapter 20, that there is much more that Jesus did that is not included in these(his)writings, but that those that are written are so that we might believe that Jesus is the Messiah and in believing having life in His name.

We see a clear pattern in the the NT.

The gospels set the stage, so to speak, whereby we learn how Jesus came to be and what He did while he walked this earth and from this narrative, we learn to believe.

In Acts, we see the beginning of the Church. We see the beginning of the structure of the church, how a council is handled to determine questions that arise, how men are to be chosen to lead the new churches, and how the church became universal.

In the epistles, we have the “sermons” of the Apostles, telling us how this new Christian faith was supposed to work and how to live a life in Christ.

The Holy Spirit does indeed come to each of us, but we each have a different gift to offer the church.

It is simply wrong think the Holy Spirit leads to the many disparate interpretation of the Truth, that Jesus promised.

[Jvette]

I don’t know anyone that claims their interpretation is infallible. But everyone I know is personally responsible for their interpretation.

Are you new to the religion forum on FR?

Everyone here believes they and they alone can interpret Scripture correctly.

[Jvette]

When Jesus washed the feet of the Apostles on the night of the last supper, Peter at first rejects the notion of Jesus washing his feet. When Jesus says that Peter must allow it and will understand why after, Peter says, well then wash also my head and my hands.

Jesus says that one who has had a bath, has no need to have their head and hands washed, only their feet are dirty.

Now, this is certainly a tale to illustrate the humility of Jesus and that He will ask the same humility of His disciples.

But, if one considers it again, what bath would Jesus have been speaking of? Baptism? If baptism is a remission of sins, then Jesus is saying that when one has been baptized, one has no need to be baptized again.

But, during our walk through life, our feet get dirty, i. e. we sin, and we are therefore in need of continual and frequent cleansing. We are forgiven our sins when we repent of them, so we must always be repentant.

The question then becomes, what happens to us when we die with sins for which we haven’t repented?

If nothing unclean can enter into the glory of God, how does one with unforgiven sins enter?

The church teaches that this is purgatory, a state not a place.

I once heard someone say that purgatory would be the sweet anguished burning in our hearts we will feel when we know that we are soon to be with Jesus, but we must first be perfected for that time.