 |
Luther’s Bible (1534: from Wikipedia) “Nothing else compares with this standard” |
Often this question is asked in a mindless way, and it is asked for the purpose of making the statement that Sola Scriptura is somehow self-contradictory. But that’s not the case at all. Turretinfan’s response to this question is simple and elegant, and I’d like to share it here with some minor edits and some comments of my own:
Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?
Short Answer: John 20:31 says, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
Brief Explanation: John’s statement implies that a person could pick up John’s gospel, read it, believe it, and receive eternal life in that way. Moreover, John’s statement at least hints at the fact that the other gospels have a similar purpose - they are written for us to read, believe, and have eternal life. There are many other verses that suggest that this is the case.
This certainly is an excellent example of the statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”.
Continuing from Turretinfan:
Possible Objection: But where is the “only” in that text?
Response: The “sola” or “only” of “Sola Scriptura” is simply a negative claim - in other words, it’s saying that Scripture is unique - there’s nothing else like Scripture. If you want some verses that emphasize the unique character of Scripture, those also exist.
For example, Romans 3:4 says “Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:
‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.’” (Psalm 51:4)”. This emphasizes the crucial distinction between God’s word and men’s words.
Another example is this:
Deuteronomy 13:1-5: If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
The point to take away from that passage is that even if someone has authority that appears to be attested by working wonders, the person’s message should be judged by the Scriptures (in this case, by the Pentateuch).
A legitimate [and more honest] Roman Catholic response at this point would be to assert (and prove, or verify) the Roman claim that “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone” (CCC 85). Or to discuss what that claim meant in 1518.
The Protestant way to look at this question is to understand that God acts in history, and the Scriptures are then “God’s interpretation” of his own acts in history. “Rome’s interpretation” of God’s interpretation then is both superfluous and often wrong.
Continuing from Turretinfan:
Paul similarly warns the Galatians: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8) Someone may object that “preached” could refer to the gospel Paul delivered orally. Nevertheless, we have that gospel in written form today.
Likewise, the Bereans are commended for subjecting the apostles’ own preaching to a comparison with the Scriptures: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
We need to keep in mind that Sola Scriptura is a summary statement for a concept that came about in a historical context, and it was a response to the Roman claim to authority that I mentioned just above.
Luther’s statement was: “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”
Luther rejected “Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium” and accepted only “Scripture + plain reason” as sources of authority.
If Roman Catholicism wants to assert its authority, it must prove its claim, that “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone” (CCC 85)
That is the real question that is at issue. Understand “what they knew, and when they knew it”, in historical context. Sola Scriptura is not in any way a self-contradictory claim. It is a simple assertion that God’s Word is our true standard of God’s authority and our knowledge of God, and that no other source of information (or interpretation) carries the same meaning or authority.
This question, “where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?, has been a staple of Roman Catholic apologetics for centuries, and the persistence of it shows certainly that the Roman Catholic who asks it shows first that he is misinformed, and is spreading that misinformation (either intentionally or unintentionally), and that he fails to understand what the true issue is.
In either case, Roman Catholics who are in a mind to observe the New Evangelization, if they are going have any semblance of credibility in Protestant-vs-Catholic discussions, are going to need to show their fundamental honesty by speaking out against Roman Catholics who continue to ask this question and thus, who continue to perpetuate misinformation.
Sola Scriptura, in the way you describe it, may not be a self-contradiction, but it definitely lacks merit. In the first place, the NT canon is not apostolic in the sense that it was formed by the apostles themselves. There were co-workers to the apostles which much later began to inter-communicate the gospels and epistles of Paul, with the other epistles, Revelation, etc.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, Paul did not know whether his epistle to Laodicea or his preliminary epistle to Corinth would be inserted into what would later be called a NT Canon, something which he could not have possibly envisioned. For all he knew, his first epistle to Corinth, his epistle to Laodicea, or any of his other epistles were just as authoratative for the churches in question. In fact, the church of Corinth, Laodicea, and any other church Paul planted or some of the other jewish missionaries planted were unaware of the NT canon for some time. For them, the spoken word of the apostles in conjunction with the Law, Prophets, and Psalms was the rule of faith.
We could go on and on, but the NT canon, as it is set in the 27 book organization, is not of apostolic origin in the sense that the apostles knew about them and formed them together. They are however apostolic in nature, but in different senses. So right off the bat, you have a fundamental dogma of Protestantism which came later than the apostles, but which is somehow the only rule of faith.
You take the 27 books of the Canon, but you won't accept the message of the Christians who formed the 27 book canon. I am not talking about the councils of Hippo or Rome, I am talking about the early Christians who, much after the apostolic era, were able to copy and inter-communicate all of Paul's epistles that were binding, and the other books in the NT, to all the districts and locations of all the churches.
Erick:
ReplyDeleteSola Scriptura, in the way you describe it, may not be a self-contradiction,
Don’t miss the point. The way I describe it is the way that it is, and for Roman Catholics to suggest it is something else is dishonest.
but it definitely lacks merit.
It does not. If you consider that Rome’s accounting of things is not true – and the Reformers made that judgment within a particular historical context, then Sola Scriptura is the best way to approach the remaining data.
In the first place, the NT canon is not apostolic in the sense that it was formed by the apostles themselves.
In the first place, Erick, we should be clear that the canon issue is the last line of defense for Roman Catholics in the defense of their “IP”. That is, Roman Catholics never simply interact with the historical data and say, “see, history confirms the Roman Catholic accounting of its own authority”. It does not.
In the second place, the New Testament canon is certainly “Apostolic” in the sense that the individual writings, which were known to be “Apostolic” from the time they were written, all were collected in one place, and “not-Apostolic” writings were very easily excluded. Just understanding this process alone takes us, in the 2nd century, to the point at which virtually 95% of the New Testament canon was formed.
If you’d like to take this further, and somehow say that it was “infallible church authority” (“IP”) that ultimately made the deciding call between “divine revelation and mere human opinion”, well, the historical accounting of things is in such a state that, if there is any truth at all to that argument, you ought to be able to make it.
There were co-workers to the apostles which much later began to inter-communicate the gospels and epistles of Paul, with the other epistles, Revelation, etc.
This is not in question. But first, there is very good evidence that the Apostles themselves began to collect these writings. It seems virtually certain that Paul or his immediate circle began to collect Paul’s own letters while he was alive. And even Peter considers Paul’s letters to be Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). There is no question that that understanding of “canon” carried through in the successive decades.
In other words, Paul did not know whether his epistle to Laodicea or his preliminary epistle to Corinth would be inserted into what would later be called a NT Canon, something which he could not have possibly envisioned.
You can’t possibly know what Paul was thinking. In fact, the fact that he asked letters to be exchanged indicates he understood the value of his own writings.
However, what you fail to recognize is that Canonicity is a function of a Sovereign God: If God is going to say, “my Word”, he is capable of defending it. And a God who is Sovereign ontologically is also Sovereign epistemologically.
In fact, the church of Corinth, Laodicea, and any other church Paul planted or some of the other jewish missionaries planted were unaware of the NT canon for some time.
This is a meaningless statement. You were unaware of your own existence for some time. What is your point, other than to disparage Scripture?
For them, the spoken word of the apostles in conjunction with the Law, Prophets, and Psalms was the rule of faith.
And when a written letter from an apostle came by, it was recognized as Scripture.
We could go on and on, but the NT canon, as it is set in the 27 book organization, is not of apostolic origin in the sense that the apostles knew about them and formed them together. They are however apostolic in nature, but in different senses. So right off the bat, you have a fundamental dogma of Protestantism which came later than the apostles, but which is somehow the only rule of faith.
DeleteWe have already covered this ground. And in fact, the “fundamental dogma of Protestantism”, that “the Scriptures alone are the Word of God, and nothing else compares with that standard” is the very thing that Rome usurped.
You take the 27 books of the Canon, but you won't accept the message of the Christians who formed the 27 book canon.
To the contrary, I do value their contribution. But it does not make them “infallible”, especially not as Rome defines it, and for you to accept Rome’s contention, and to espouse it here, is to incur upon yourself a burden of proof that neither you (nor any Roman Catholic in our day) is willing or able to own up to.
John Bugay,
ReplyDeleteWhat I think you are failing to realize is that as generations pass, in particular from the apostolic era to the immediate post-apostolic era, the original witnesses who can assure the origins of all the books of the 27 in the NT canon are no longer there to be living and contemporary proof, something which is needed for all future bickering and division. Who is to stand in judgement over the present state of affairs? Without an authoritative tradition, with the external human face along with it, you are allowing each successive generation to be depending on a weak system of knowing the truth in the present. You are depending on a history of human beings who you yourself believe are subject to error, and since there can be hypocrites at all times, you might be appealing to a 27 book canon created by such erroneous men. Who is to say there are not other epistles? Who is to speak on Judge? Revelation? etc,etc.
Your historical evidence is the same sort which is used and debated over with many other ancient topics. I would not leave my faith in one of these categories.
You are projecting a number of later concepts anachronisticly back into first- and second-century Christianity.
DeleteWho is to stand in judgement over the present state of affairs?
We know from Shepherd of Hermas, written around the mid second century, that there were elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church at Rome. Hermas is chastising the multiple leaders of the church at Rome. This is important to note because Hermas identifies himself as a slave (Vis. 1.1). It will not do to say that this is a group of priests who work for a bishop. The entire group “presides.” There was much contention among these, though eventually a single leader was able to come into focus late in the second century.
This single leader then figured out some time that it could try to "stand judgment", whereas there was a tremendous amount of writers, initially from the African provinces (Tertullian and Cyprian) whereas the eastern writers (Firmilian) really rejected any "leadership" overtures from Rome.
Without an authoritative tradition, with the external human face along with it, you are allowing each successive generation to be depending on a weak system of knowing the truth in the present.
This is one of your anachronisms. Think about the historical situation "from the beginning". THey were living in the present, jostling for things "in the present". There may have been some eschatological sense in the early church, which faded over the decades, but nobody was thinking "successive generations".
You hold to Liccione's notion of "knowing with certainty the difference between divine revelation and human opinion". But there is no way you can point to an instance of that sort of "certainty" being claimed prior to the fourth century.
So the church of the first, second, and third centuries - probably at its most vulnerable, most persecuted times, was left to blow in the wind without that certainty.
Erick: You are depending on a history of human beings who you yourself believe are subject to error, since there can be hypocrites at all times, you might be appealing to a 27 book canon created by such erroneous men
DeleteNot true. I've already outlined, the early church held the Apostolic writings as sacred from the time they were written. It's not like Paul's letters or a Gospel ever was found in a stack of manuscripts, and then someone said, "Hey, this is one of the Holy Gospels, we should include this as Sacred". The four Gospels always were held as such.
Who is to say there are not other epistles?
If there are, we don't have them. God himself has seen to this state of affairs. As Kruger says, "if they were lost, they never were canonical books".
Your historical evidence is the same sort which is used and debated over with many other ancient topics. I would not leave my faith in one of these categories.
If you don't know Christ from the Bible alone, the actual writings which spoke of him, everything else is speculation. The Christological heresies were speculation, and the effort was made at Chalcedon was not to pick one of them, but to define boundaries outside of which one was not on Scriptural ground.
As far as "historical evidence", how would you know what the early church believed if not for historical writings? Not only by members of the church, but those writers from outside the church?
The notion of an "unwritten tradition" that was "handed down" is where your pure speculation comes in. "The Mass" as I've written here, was a 4th century "development". The notion that the bread and wine "changed" was only first mentioned in the 4th century by Ambrose.
What of the beliefs in the first three centuries? Is a belief first articulated in the 4th century and then dogmatized in the 12th normative for all Christians at all times?
Or should we not be persuaded to ask, "what did they believe in the first, second, or third centuries?" How will we know what was believed, except by the written documents that are attested at the different times and places to which we can locate the varies early church documents?
As it is, your faith, in rejecting history, is built on the power struggles of 4th and 5th century Roman church leaders, whose interest lay not in the question "what are 21st century believers going to do if we don't infallibly declare some things", but rather on, their own positions of authority in their own times.
John Bugay,
DeleteI understand where you are coming from, especially with the way the modern Catholic apologists address this. I think many Catholics today get a superficial upper-hand in the argument with philosophy and logic, but much of what is put on the table is not tenable when held under patient scrutiny. That being said, I still think the apologetic of the reformed suffers even more. What this means is that I believe that Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, however members in her do not always understand how to argue these things well.
In the first place, you seem to be indicating the God's sovereignty protected the canonical writings for his elect throughout the world. This always seem to ground some of the relief when things get a bit shaky in the historical journey. The problem is the following: How could God fool His beloved children for 2,000 years on which books go into the NT? Understand that the 27 book Canon, and the 22 book (post-temple Judaism) was not held in consensus throughout the district of local churches. I think you are well aware of that. Many of God's beloved were quoting from Baruch, but not from Maccabees, and from Wisdom, but not another. Were they slipped through the fingers in God's sovereignty? Or were they just not elect? Not to mention that the LXX included the deutero-Canon, and of which Paul freely quoted. If there was some early law from the apostles to exclude what is known by you as "apocrypha", how does this slip the church so early? Again, did this slip through the fingers of God's sovereignty? Or were those who lacked assurance in the 22 book canon not elect? You see, in the reformed dogma's, I can see how one can always pick and choose who is elect and who is not, based on our private judgement of the Scriptures. I am not saying, of course, that you do this, but the doctrine of Sovereignty is so close at hand, that when things get a bit hazy, we can always rely on the fact that God held "some" in his hand. And this "some", I presume you think, is the one's who always believed in the 66 canon? If not, Kruger's dependence on sovereignty doesn't hold up if it cannot account for the deception of some of the children in God's family right from the very beginning, with such close proximity to the holy Fathers, the apostles themselves.
Ignatius tells us that there are "bishops" installed throughout the world, and he also says there is not a church if there is not a bishop with her presbyters and the deacons. Of course we know he left his bishopric in Antioch, and did comment on how God would be the bishop. We know from other sources that the chair of Ignatius, which was the chair of Peter, did not remain vacant.
DeleteThe earliest Christians did not codify the hierarchy in the local churches. There were a number of "Elders", and we propose, with much historical evidence to back it up, that it was assumed that one of the "Elders" has jurisdiction over the other "Elders". I had spent time in a church where the congregation would refer to the heirarchy of the Church as simply the "Leaders". But it was anything but a plurality of people with the same authority. There is not direct statement in history which brings direct evidence against the monarchical episcopate.
With regard to Tertullian, Cyprian, and the East. You seem to be forgetting that Cyprian had within his own ecclesiology an inescapable (implicit) acceptance of one visible head in the universal body of Christ. He explicitly rejected of course, but his view of the ekklesia did not match the reformed, but interestingly enough, it matches pretty close to the Catholic Church, minus a clear understanding of how the universal church was governed. It seems to me that if the early Church could not catch the errors of the view of a visible head governing the Church, then there were some very weak Christians at Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, all of which concede to "some" primacy in Rome that was "known". A man made development? Then all who were conceding to it throughout it's development were simply not strong in the faith. And this is an assumption I am not willing to take.
Erick, I don't have time to respond right here today, but I'll address these two comments in a future blog post (likely Tuesday morning, but I can't guarantee it). Please stay tuned.
DeleteMeanwhile, it's not as if I haven't thought about these kinds of things in depth. See these couple of posts for a couple of discussions of these matters:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/05/kruger-vs-ratzinger.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/kruger-vs-ratzinger-2-apostolic.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/kruger-vs-ratzinger-4-four-different.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/kruger-vs-ratzinger-show-so-far.html
Erick,
ReplyDeleteI believe that authoritative tradition played a huge part in the early Church's understanding or recognition of God's Canon of Scripture - just not the way that Roman Catholics typically describe the process.
The authoritative oral tradition was the actual teaching from the mouth of Jesus and then from His Apostles. When the Gospel accounts, the book of Acts and the Epistles began to be circulated, the surviving Apostles themselves and those whom they had taught could authenticate them as accurate written records of what they had personally experienced - seen, heard, and taught. This fact alone would ensure that the vast majority of our current New Testament was recognized, revered, copied and distributed from the earliest time period of the Church Age. Conversely, false accounts or teachings (oral or written) would have been quickly exposed as inauthentic by the very ones who could say, "Jesus - or Peter or Paul, etc - never said or did that." We would be remiss if we did not credit God Himself with protecting and preserving His inspired Word, and I am thankful that He did not wait centuries to make known to His Church the Canon of His Holy Word.
Thanks Steve. Though I would hesitate to use the words "authoritative tradition". The "paradosis" ("tradition") that Paul talked about, that he "handed on", was pretty much congruent with the message he was preaching (Gal 1:6-9, for example).
DeleteSteve,
DeleteI am not sure what you mean by "the way that Roman Catholics typically describe the process". Of course some make it seem like no one knew the Canon until the Councils, which is false. There are clear references to a "canon" of the NT extremely early, but not as early as the apostles. Whatever "trust" you are putting in the apostolic co-workers, realize that it is the same trust you would have given to an "apostle". The real problem here is that you are trusting in God's preservation of his canon. However, why did he preserve the NT? And not the Old? The Old Testament was widely embracing what you consider as apochrypha, and the Councils held to the Roman Catholic canon. Why did God "preserve" one strand, and not the other? In my mind, this is an issue.
Can someone tell me when (which council) was the canon closed for the RCs? Was it at Carthage? I think the Carthage church would look a lot different from the RCC of today.
ReplyDeleteexplorer,
DeleteThe Canon is STILL NOT CLOSED for Rome. The Council of Trent passed over the book of 2 Esdras in silence, so nobody knows whether it is canonical.
There were regional councils in Carthage in 397 and 419.
Delete