Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
"If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians. Diving deeper into its meaning to defend my Protestant faith against Catholicism about twenty years ago, I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
What role does tradition play? How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine? Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians? How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura? All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible?
Most Protestants find it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
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.
The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church. My attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism led me to conclude that sola scriptura is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unworkable.
Unreasonable
The Protestant appeal to the sole authority of Scripture to defend sola scriptura is a textbook example of circular reasoning, and it betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself: It is contrary to reason. One cannot prove the inspiration of Scripture, or any text, from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, the Qur’an, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and other books all claim inspiration, but this does not make them inspired.
Closely related to this is the question of the canon. After all, if the Bible is the sole rule of faith, we first have to know which books are included in the Bible. Many books were believed to be inspired and, therefore, canonical in the early Church. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff? The Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura to answer the question of the canon. It simply cannot be done.
I recall a conversation with a Protestant friend about this. He said, "The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired word of God, as Jesus said in John 16:13." I thought that that answer was more Catholic than Protestant. John 16:13 does tells us that the Spirit will lead the apostles, and by extension, the Church, into truth. But it has nothing to say about sola scriptura or the nature or number of books in the canon.
The Bible does not and cannot answer questions about its own inspiration or about the canon. Historically, the Church used sacred Tradition outside of Scripture as its criterion for the canon. The early Christians, many of whom disagreed on the issue, needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree to settle the question. Those are the historical facts.
To put my friend’s argument into perspective, imagine a Catholic making a similar claim to demonstrate that Mary is the Mother of God. "We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth." Would the Protestant respond with a hearty amen? No. He would be more likely to say, "Show me where it says in the Bible that Mary is the Mother of God!" The same question, of course, applies to Protestants concerning the canon: "Show me where the canon of Scripture is in the Bible!"
Will the Circle Be Unbroken?
The issues of the inspiration and canon of Scripture are the Achilles heel of any intellectual defense of sola scriptura. So weak are the biblical attempts at an answer that often the Protestant response just turns the argument against the Catholic. "How do you know Scripture is inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular. You say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scripture says so, then you say that Scripture is inspired and infallible because the Church says so!"
Not only is this not an answer, but it also misrepresents the Catholic position. Catholics do not claim the Church is infallible because Scripture says so. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. The Church was established and functioning as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written.
It is true that we know Scripture to be inspired and canonical only because the Church has told us so. That is historical fact. Catholics reason to inspiration of Scripture through demonstrating first its historical reliability and the truth about Christ and the Church. Then we can reasonably rely upon the testimony of the Church to tell us the text is inspired. This is not circular reasoning. The New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history, but one cannot deduce from this that it is inspired.
The testimony of the New Testament is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christian and non-Christian writers. We have the first-century testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Church Fathers—some of whom were contemporaries of the apostles—and highly reliable non-Christian writers such as Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and others, all testifying to the veracity of the Christ-event in various ways. It is on the basis of the historical evidence that we can say it is a historical fact that Jesus lived, died and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over 500 eyewitnesses (1 Cor. 15:6). Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the truth of the Resurrection of Christ (Luke 1:1-4; John 21:18-19; 24-25; Acts 1:1-11).
The historical record also tells us that Jesus Christ established a Church—not a book—to be the foundation of the Christian faith (Matt. 16:15-18; 18:15-18; cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:10, 20-21; 4:11-15; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 13:7, 17). Christ said of his Church, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
The many books that comprise the Bible never tell us that they are inspired, nor do they answer many other essential questions about their canonicity. Who can or cannot be the human authors of the texts? Who wrote them in the first place? But Scripture does tell us—remarkably clearly—that Jesus established a kingdom on earth, the Church, with a hierarchy and the authority to speak for him (Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20). If we did not have Scripture, we would still have the Church. But without the Church, there would be no New Testament Scripture. It was members of this kingdom, the Church, who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and eventually canonized it. Scripture alone could not do any of this.
The bottom line is that the truth of the Catholic Church is rooted in history. Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place. His Church gave us the New Testament with the authority of Christ. Reason rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle.
Unbiblical
There are four problems with the defense of sola scriptura using 2 Timothy 3:16. First, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. The two verses preceding 2 Timothy 3:16 say:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.
Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. As a Protestant, I was guilty of seeing more than one sola in Scripture that simply did not exist. The Bible teaches justification by faith, and we Catholics believe it, but we do not believe in justification by faith alone, as Protestants do. Among other reasons, the Bible says that we are "justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24). There is no sola in 2 Timothy 3:16 either. The passage never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith.
James 1:4 illustrates the problem:
And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.
If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to 2 Timothy 3:16, then we would have to say that all we need is patience (steadfastness) to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, or anything else.
Of course, any Christian knows this would be absurd. But James’s emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than Paul’s emphasis on Scripture. The key is to see that there is not a sola in either text. Sola patientia would be just as wrong as sola scriptura.
Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture. It is silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but it is remarkably clear in teaching that oral Tradition is just as much the word of God as Scripture is. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, Paul said:
And we also thank God . . . that 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)
According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God:
So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)
Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 is specifically addressed to members of the hierarchy. It is a pastoral epistle, written to a young bishop Paul had ordained. R. J. Foster points out that the phrase "man of God" refers to ministers, not to the average layperson (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1149). This title was used in the Old Testament to describe those consecrated to the service of God (Deut. 33:1; 1 Sam. 2:27; 1 Kgs. 12:22). Not only does the text not say Scripture sola, but Paul’s exhortation for Timothy to study the word of God is in the context of an exhortation to "preach the word" as a minister of Christ. To use this text to claim that sola scriptura is being taught to the average layperson is—to borrow a phrase from Paul—going far "beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).
Unworkable
The silence of Scripture on sola scriptura is deafening. But when it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition and to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the text is clear:
If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17)
According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline. It is telling that since the Reformation of almost 500 years ago—a Reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 Protestant denominations. In John 10:16, Jesus prophesied there would be "one flock, one shepherd." Reliance on sola scriptura has not been effective in establishing doctrine or authority.
“Let me rephrase my response. The compilation of scrolls that comprise one physical book (OT and NT), did not exist in 325 AD.”
I’m going to ignore the absurd comment about the Old Testament, but as to the New, how do YOU know that? What we do know is that Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Papais, within the 1st and 2nd century, knew what were the 4 Gospels, and quoted from virtually every book in the New Testament except for 2 Peter and maybe Jude. Origen in the 3rd century discusses EVERY book of the New Testament, long before 325AD. So what the heck are you even talking about? You think Polycarp didn’t have a compilation of scriptures that he was quoting from? Irenaeus too? You think Origen didn’t know what he was talking about until a hundred years after his death?
If there a body of “oral Tradition” that stands on equal authority with the written Scriptures where may we find these traditions and would not these traditions of necessity be in FULL AGREEMENT with the written word?
“Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
What traditions were those? What traditions did Paul pass on to them orally that are not found in written Scripture?
How do we know?
“He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).
They were to make disciples for Christ by teaching what Christ had taught, commanded, so is there some tradition or set of traditions that Christ taught that must be taught IN ADDITION to what the written Scriptures teach as
Christ's commandments? If so what are these traditions?
As far as having physical copies of documents, in that day, as in our own day, there's a tradition of oral transmission just to make sure the written record is an accurate copy.
Other religions do the same thing and have sects devoted specifically to memorizing the scriptures as they understand them.
The OT still contains the instructions for setting up a MEMORY PALACE so you can memorize both it and the scriptures comprehensively. Actually, there's several memory palaces right there in Genesis.
What are you doing on the RF making sense and all that?
Of course it can. The church is people. Take away the people and you have no church.
What the people do is what the church does, unless the people are not the church.
If the people go wrong, the church has gone wrong.
You can't have a right church with wrong people in it.
Besides, Jesus will not tolerate it. He didn't in Revelation when He chastised the seven churches there and how many of them are in existence today?
“ALL of it ~ of course there were people fully educated in all of the gospels ~ EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF THEM”
Please provide evidence for different versions of John, Matthew, Mark and Luke that Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Origen were allegedly confused about.
“Gospels are not, by themselves, the entirity of the NT.”
This is a straw man. Where did I even say that, and did you read my comment that you are responding to?
“As far as having physical copies of documents, in that day, as in our own day, there’s a tradition of oral transmission”
Please provide evidence that the word “written” refers to a “tradition of oral transmission” instead of something written down on paper.
2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Please provide evidence that when Irenaeus here mentions the “Book,” quoting the Gospel of Matthew, that he is actually referring to an oral tradition about a book that calls itself a book:
“Matthew proclaims his human birth, saying, ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham,’ and, ‘The birth of Jesus Christ was in this manner’ . for this Gospel is manlike, and so through the whole Gospel [Christ] appears as a man of a humble mind, and gentle. (Against Heresies, 3.11.8)
Quoting from verse 1 and 18 of the first chapter:
Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise...
“Other religions do the same thing and have sects devoted specifically to memorizing the scriptures as they understand them.”
And what Christian SECT in the 1st through 3rd centuries were making it their business to memorize the New Testament instead of reading the copies that Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus and Origen apparently relied on? And why would they bother to do that?
Except that there's no such thing as purgatory. Not one verse of Scripture supports the doctrine.
On the contrary, Paul says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord and in Hebrews, that it is appointed to men once to die and after this the judgment.
I suppose that when many Catholics are suffering torment in hell, they'll need to console themselves that it is only temporary even though it's not.
I believe it is and you believe it is, but can you or any of us prove it?
For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. – Matt 4:4
Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11
I am that bread of life. – John 6:48
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. - Isaiah 55:11
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. - Matt 5:18
Tradition. Ah, yes. Custom. And common practice. Courtesy. In Internet conversations they require that you italicize the text you are quoting from the post you are responding to. Any disagreements?
A disease has caught Free Republic. It’s been brought here a couple of months ago by a self-styled theology expert who defies this custom, as she defies his Whore of Babylon, and quotes without italicizing, and instead just underlining the quoted text, making it appears as his own. Which may be just as well, as he seems to argue with himself. And I am to trust an interpreter of the Holy Scripture interpreting the very Holy Scripture when he is unable or unwilling to learn two (count them: 2) HTML tags? Gag me with a spoon!
If you are imitating him, and I know some do, STOP!
But the scrolls DID exist. It's irrelevant that they were not compiled together. The compilation of them did not make them Scripture. They are Scripture because they were intrinsically Scripture.
They were recognized as Scripture long before 325 AD and the *Catholic church* putting its stamp of approval on them changes nothing and means nothing, except to Catholics.
**The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. **
BTTT!
Oh, but it e ven says in the Bible that not everything is writte4n down!
End of John
Christ founded his Church on the apostles, the first Bishops. Why is that so hard to believe?
Scripture does not teach that. There's no support for the claim that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth.
2 Timothy 2:2You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
And I will ask again. What traditions are those, how to we know they're from Paul, and how do we know that those claimed traditions were passed down faithfully? What source do you use to verify the teachings and their veracity?
The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
On the contrary, the believers were commended for searching Scripture to verify Paul's teachings to see if they were so. They didn't take even Paul himself at his word but rather checked out what he was saying, comparing it to Scripture.
Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
That is the most backward thinking I've ever seen.
Oral tradition to make sure the written word is an accurate copy?
Tell me.... Which is more likely to change over close to 2,000 years? A written manuscript from 2,000 years ago or oral tradition which has allegedly been passed down word of mouth for 2,000 years for however many generations that is?
Please explain to me how an almost 2,000 year old document could have changed during that time?
Nobody is denying that.
But this is what John says in chapter 20....
John 20:30-31 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
What is included in the book of John is enough for a person to come to salvation.
So, what exactly did Jesus teach that wasn't written down and how do we know what it is and how do we know that it has been handed down faithfully?
What are the proofs and where are the links to back those claims up?
There was a lot of teaching person to person. Even Paul talks about it. It’s not all written down.
The church is founded on Christ, the Rock.
Peter, the guy you claim as first pope, even says so in his letter.
1 Peter 2:4-8 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
8 and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
Read the Early Church Fathers who were around when Jesus was there and when the Mass started. They knew the apostles and got a lot of stories from them that aren’t in the Bible.
So what is it?
And how do we know?
How can we be sure of its veracity?
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.