Which is the historical Sola Scriptura?

[kceaster]

It has been put forth on this board many times that we believe one of the most important doctrines of the Reformation is Sola Scriptura.

There are differing views of this doctrine on the board. For the sake of clarification, I would like to discuss these certain views, but through the rubric of Keith Mathison's, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura."

For those of you who have not read it, he puts forward four differing views of Sola Scriptura and gives a background as to when those views historically came into being. I will do my best to outline them briefly below.

Tradition 0 - Only the Scriptures and no traditions. This view basically claims that the Scriptures are the sole authority, but that each person must determine for themselves the interpretation of them. This view allows for no extrabiblical revelation.

Tradition 1 - Only the Scriptures plus the Apostolic rule of faith. This view claims that the Scriptures are the sole authority, and that the establishment of the rule of faith of the early church, and subsequent generations that followed them, helps to determine the interpretation of the Scriptures. This view allows for no extrabiblical revelation.

Tradition 2 - Only Scriptures, plus written and oral traditions that have been adopted in subsequent years. This view sees the Scriptures as authoritative, but also allows for written and oral tradition passed down from generation to generation to be a part of the rule of faith. This view allows for extrabiblical revelation.

Tradition 3 - Only the Scriptures, plus on-going revelation by God. This view believes that the Bible is authoritative. However, it must be interpreted with the times. Therefore, each person in each generation must interpret the Bible in their own way. This view allows for extrabiblical revelation.

Discussions?

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by kceaster]

 

[Scott]

Mathison's book is great and should be read by all.

I think there is a separate but related issue too. The issue is, even if scripture is the ultimate authority (as all here would agree), what body or entity is properly charged with being the final earthly authority to resolve differences of interpretation?

Most evangelicals would say each individual is the final earthly authority. In other words, when people disagree about what the Bible means, there is no authoritative recourse. The sole recourse is persuasion.

I think this is error. I think the reformers recognized that the mind of the church, as expressed in councils and synods, is properly charged with resolving conflicts among individuals. Acts 15 is the main example of this. The interpretations of a council are more authoritative than those of an individual.

Scott

 

[Scott]

BTW, here is an online chapter from Mathison's book. This chapter is a critique of Tradition 0:

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html

 

[JonathonHunt]

In my opinion, Acts 15 does not show a council, it shows the meeting of two churches with the one having a complaint about certain judaisers who originated from the other. Paul recieved revelation directly from God - it is strange to think that he would subject his God-given instruction to some form of 'council' to determine its veracity. The meeting was a matter of church discipline.

If anyone wants more on this view (but I'm sure its already been discussed) then I could put it on later when I find my notes!

I know I'm a Baptist, but there are presbyterians who think the same - ie Robert Reymond. Then again, I know some of you think Reymond is a screaming heretic...




[Edited on 3-25-2004 by JonathanHunt]

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by JonathanHunt]

 

[kceaster]

Jonathan...

[quote:acf5f6c0f1][i:acf5f6c0f1]Originally posted by JonathanHunt[/i:acf5f6c0f1]
In my opinion, Acts 15 does not show a council, it shows the meeting of two churches with the one having a complaint about certain judaisers who originated from the other. Paul recieved revelation directly from God - it is strange to think that he would subject his God-given instruction to some form of 'council' to determine its veracity. The meeting was a matter of church discipline.

If anyone wants more on this view (but I'm sure its already been discussed) then I could put it on later when I find my notes!

I know I'm a Baptist, but there are presbyterians who think the same - ie Robert Reymond. Then again, I know some of you think Reymond is a screaming heretic...




[Edited on 3-25-2004 by JonathanHunt]

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by JonathanHunt] [/quote:acf5f6c0f1]

Does that mean you voted Tradition 0?

If we want to discuss Acts 15, we could move it to another forum. Go ahead and start a thread on it in the Biblical/Text Forum.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Don A]

[quote:4828decbcf]
Tradition 1 - Only the Scriptures plus the Apostolic rule of faith. This view claims that the Scriptures are the sole authority, and that the establishment of the rule of faith of the early church, and subsequent generations that followed them, helps to determine the interpretation of the Scriptures. This view allows for no extra biblical revelation.
[/quote:4828decbcf]

The true "Apostolic rule of faith" could only be that which is in the scriptures. Otherwise, it would be post-apostolic, therefore, post-Biblical.

The "rule of faith of the early church", or at least our record of it, [i:4828decbcf]could[/i:4828decbcf] have been corrupted soon after the Apostles ceased their ministries. We know for a fact that the Apostles themselves continually battled false teaching and apostasy in the churches of their day.

Here's a bit from the Catholic Information Network:

[quote:4828decbcf]THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF SOLA SCRIPTURA
by James Akin
Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone&quot teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice&quot must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological," cf. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1985).

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority.[/quote:4828decbcf]

Full article at:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/practicl.htm

In other words (Mr. Akin's words), without tradition, it won't work.
I strongly agree with his definition, but not his conclusion.

SOLA = ALONE. Plus nothing.

The question posed is "Which is the historical Sola Scriptura?".

Well, historically it has most often been defined as Tradition 1.

But by true definition, it would be, and should be, Tradition 0.

 

[Scott]

Don:

I disagree that the "true defintion" would be "Tradition 0." Also, I would not look to the Catholic network to define Protestant views.

In any event, we have a parallel in our modern legal system. We can say that the Constitution is the ultimate standard of law. Yet, the courts construe and apply the constitution. They are the body properly charged with that function. Their decisions have actual authority. The caselaw that surrounds the Constituion provides a interpretive tradition that is not greater than the Constitution but rather derivative to it.

From a practical perspective, this caselaw affects the way we live. When individuals disagree about the meaning, they have caselaw to appeal to.

Scott

 

[Scott]

BTW, it would seem that the selection of which books should be included in the canon is a sort of derivative tradition. The mind of the church accepted that which was the Word and rejected uninspired documents, like the Gospel of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the 100 or so other documents that circulated in the early church.

The highest witness as to which books are inspired is the Holy Spirit working in the mind of the collective church. The church's work in this area is done and it is wrong to challenge it (as Luther foolishly did, suggesting that James was uninspired). The church does not authorize the scriptures, but is the proper body to recognize the voice of the Spirit in them.

Tradition 0, if held consistently, necessitates each individual believer rejecting the tradition of the canon and making an individual assessment of each particular book to determine if it is inspired. This would be absurd and beyond the skill of everyone, or nearly everyone.

Scott

 

[pastorway]

Sola Scriptura = Scripture Alone

Don A is correct. By the very definition of terms, sola means alone.

The WCF

[quote:816f29f7fc]Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament.....All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, [u:816f29f7fc]depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church[/u:816f29f7fc]; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.

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: [u:816f29f7fc]unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men[/u:816f29f7fc].[/quote:816f29f7fc]

The LBCF

[quote:816f29f7fc][u:816f29f7fc]The Holy Scripture is the only [/u:816f29f7fc]sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed,[u:816f29f7fc] depends not on the testimony of any man or church[/u:816f29f7fc], but wholly upon God its Author (Who is Truth itself). Therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, [u:816f29f7fc]to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men[/u:816f29f7fc]. [/quote:816f29f7fc]

The Scirptures are the teachings and tradition of the Prophets and Apostles. So we see then that Sola Scirptura means the Scripture alone. As soon as we require extra-Biblical tradition to understand the Bible we are no longer holding to true Sola Scriptura.

Scripture plus tradition does not equal Sola Scriptura. In fact, Scripture plus [i:816f29f7fc]anything[/i:816f29f7fc] else does not equal Sola Scriptura.

Further, to require tradition and church teaching to understand the BIble rightly denies the perspicuity of Scripture as well as the ability of the Holy Spirit to illumine those reading and hearing the Word.

Yes the church is to teach and preach, but the Word is not given authority by the church! The church is given authority by the Word. Let's not confuse the two and place tradition on an equal footing with the God breathed Word!

James White has defined Sola Scriptura this way:

[quote:816f29f7fc]Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.

http://aomin.org/SS.html[/quote:816f29f7fc]

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals has stated:

[quote:816f29f7fc]We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.[/quote:816f29f7fc]

See also a multitude of articles defining Sola Scriptura at the monergism.com:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/fivesolas.html

Finally, you can read AA Hodge as he argues against the requirement of Tradition to understand Scripture here (emphasis added):

[quote:816f29f7fc]THE RULE OF FAITH & PRACTICE.

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Having Been Given By Inspiration of God, Are the All-Sufficient and Only Rule of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Controversies.


[b:816f29f7fc]1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us.

[b:816f29f7fc]2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible rule of faith and practice?[/b:816f29f7fc]

The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the Church. Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional truth not contained in the Scriptures; and, 2nd, to interpret Scripture. The Church being the divinely constituted depository and judge of both Scripture and tradition.--" Decrees of Council of Trent," Session IV, and "Dens Theo.," Tom. 2., N. 80 and 81.

[b:816f29f7fc]3. By what arguments do they seek to establish the authority of tradition? By what criterion do they distinguish true traditions from false, and on what grounds do they base the authority of the traditions they receive?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. Their arguments in behalf of tradition are--(1.) Scripture authorizes it, 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6. (2.) The early fathers asserted its authority and founded their faith largely upon it. (3.) The oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, when clearly ascertained, is intrinsically of equal authority with their writings. The scriptures themselves are handed down to us by the evidence of tradition, and the stream cannot rise higher than its source. (4.) The necessity of the case. (a.) Scripture is obscure, needs tradition as its interpreter. (b.)Scripture is incomplete as a rule of faith and practice; since there are many doctrines and institutions, universally recognized, which are founded only upon tradition as a supplement to Scripture. (5.) Analogy. every state recognizes both written and unwritten, common and statute law.

2nd. The criterion by which they distinguish between true and false traditions is Catholic consent. The Anglican ritualists confine the application of the rule to the first three or four centuries. the Romanists recognize that as an authoritative consent which is constitutionally expressed by the bishops in general council, or by the Pope ex-cathedra, in any age of the church whatever.

3rd. They defend the traditions which they hold to be true. (1.) On the ground of historical testimony, tracing them up to the apostles as their source. (2.) The authority of the Church expressed by Catholic consent.

[b:816f29f7fc]4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical tradition, as a part of our rule of faith and practice, be shown?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7.

2nd. [u:816f29f7fc]It is improbable a priori that God would supplement Scripture with tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Because Scripture, as will be shown below (questions 7-14), is certain, definite, complete, and perspicuous. (2.) Because tradition, from its very nature, is indeterminate, and liable to become adulterated with every form of error. Besides, as will be shown below (question 20), the authority of Scripture does not rest ultimately upon tradition[/u:816f29f7fc].

3rd The whole ground upon which Romanists base the authority of their traditions (viz., history and church authority) is invalid. (1.) History utterly fails them. For more than three hundred years after the apostles they have very little, and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions.

They are thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in the first. (2.) [u:816f29f7fc]The church is not infallible, as will be shown below (question 18)[/u:816f29f7fc].

4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles. Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they do not receive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent inventions unknown to the ancients.

5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, etc., are plainly in direct opposition to Scripture. Yet the infallible church affirms the infallibility of Scripture. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

[b:816f29f7fc]5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of faith?[/b:816f29f7fc]

[u:816f29f7fc]Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity or clarity, and accessibility[/u:816f29f7fc].

[b:816f29f7fc]6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves afford in favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. The Scriptures always speak in the name of God, and command faith and obedience.

2nd. [u:816f29f7fc]Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scriptures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith whatsoever[/u:816f29f7fc].--Luke 16:29; 10:26; John 5:39; Rom. 4:3;2 Tim. 3:15.

3rd. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions, even apostolic teaching, to this test.--Acts 17:11; see also Isa. 8:16.

4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and perverting the Scriptures.--Matt. 15:7-9; Mark 7:5-8; see also Rev. 22:18, 19, and Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Josh. 1:7.

[b:816f29f7fc]7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of faith asserted?[/b:816f29f7fc]

It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever made to man, but that their contents are the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man, and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guidance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.

[b:816f29f7fc]8. How may this completeness be proved, from the design of scripture?[/b:816f29f7fc]

The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, as tradition, is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it.

"Incompleteness here would be falsehood." But while one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other rule.--John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:15-17.

[b:816f29f7fc]9. By what other arguments may this principle be proved?[/b:816f29f7fc]

As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so they have always been practically found to be such by the true spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete and harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary principles for the government of the private lives of Christians, in every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the administration of the affairs of his kingdom; and they repel all pretended -traditions and priestly innovations.

[b:816f29f7fc]10. In what sense do Protestants affirm and Romanists deny the perspicuity of Scripture?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. Many of them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do they affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded, many of the prophesies being perfectly obscure until explained by the event. But they do affirm that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on the other hand, it is true, that with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the system therein taught.

[u:816f29f7fc]Protestants affirm and Romanists deny that private and unlearned Christians may safely be allowed to interpret Scripture for themselves[/u:816f29f7fc].

[b:816f29f7fc]11. How can the perspicuity of scripture be proved from the fact that it is a law and a message?[/b:816f29f7fc]

We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false, from its own professed design. We now prove its perspicuity upon the same principle. It professes to be (1) a law to be obeyed; (2) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be received by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal death. To suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of commanding and teaching is to charge God with clearing with us in a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel.

[b:816f29f7fc]12. In what passages is their perspicuity asserted?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Ps. 19:7,8; 119:105,130; 2 Cor. 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:18,19; Hab. 2:2; 2 Tim. 3:15,17.

[b:816f29f7fc]13. By what other arguments may this point be established?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such.--Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14; Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.

2nd. All Christians indiscriminately are commanded to search the Scriptures.--2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39.

3rd. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property in the sun. The argument to the contrary, is an insult to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers.

4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures.

[b:816f29f7fc]14. What was the third quality required to constitute the scriptures the sufficient rule of faith and practice?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the pre-eminent characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, which is in the custody of a corporation of priests, and to every other pretended rule whatsoever. The agency of the church in this matter is simply to give all currency to the word of God.

[b:816f29f7fc]15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge as well as the rule in questions of faith?[/b:816f29f7fc]

[u:816f29f7fc]"A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases." The Protestant doctrine is--

1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

2nd. (1.) negatively. That there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians.

(2.) Positively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church, and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 John 2:20-27), by each individual for himself; with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach[/u:816f29f7fc].

[b:816f29f7fc]16. What is the Romish doctrine regarding the authority of the church as the infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the authoritative judge of all controversies?[/b:816f29f7fc]

The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infallible in all matters of Christian faith and practice, and the divinely authorized depository and interpreter of the rule of faith. Her office is not to convey new revelations from God to man, yet her inspiration renders her infallible in disseminating and interpreting the original revelation communicated through the apostles.

The church, therefore, authoritatively determines--1st. What is Scripture. 2nd. What is genuine tradition 3rd. What is the true sense of Scripture and 'tradition', and what is the true application of that perfect rule to every particular question of belief or practice.

This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official capacity, and in the bishops as a body, as when assembled in general council, or when giving universal consent to a decree of pope or council.--"Decrees of Council of Trent," Session 4.; "Deus Theo.," N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96. "Bellarmine," Lib. 3., de eccles., cap. 14., and Lib. 2., de council., cap. 2.

[b:816f29f7fc]17. By what arguments do they seek to establish this authority?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the apostles, and to their official successor, securing their infallibility, and consequent authority.--Matt. 16:18; 18:18-20; Luke 24:47-49; John 16:13; 20:23.

2nd. The commission given to the church as the teacher of the world.--Matt. 28:19, 20; Luke 10:16, etc.

3rd. The church is declared to be "the pillar and ground of the truth," and it is affirmed that "the gates of hell shall never prevail against her."

4th. To the church is granted power to bind and loose, and he that will not hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. Matt. 16:19; 18:15-18.

5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between truth and error, and must consequently be qualified and authorized to do so--2 Thessalonians 3:6; Romans 16:17; 2 John 10.

6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an ever-living, visible, and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter and Judge.

7th. From universal analogy every community among men has the living judge as well as the written law, and the one would be of no value without the other.

8th. This power is necessary to secure unity and universality, which all acknowledge to be essential attributes of the true church.

[b:816f29f7fc]18. By what arguments may this claim of the Romish church be shown to be utterly baseless?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous can be established only by the most clear and certain evidence, and the failure to produce such converts the claim into a treason at once against God and the human race.

2nd. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to preserve his church from extinction and from error do none of them go the length of pledging infallibility. The utmost promised is, that the true people of God shall never perish entirely from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials of the faith.

3rd. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the body of true believers. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:33,47,48,49, and 1 John 2:20,27.

4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the precious promises of the Scriptures are pledged is not an external, visible society, the authority of which is vested in the hands of a perpetual line of apostles. For--(1.) the word church ekklhsia is a collective term, embracing the effectually called klhtoi or regenerated.--Rom. 1:7; 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Jude 1:; Rev. 17:14; also Rom. 9:24; 1 Cor. 7:18-24; Gal. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 9:15; 1 Pet. 2:9; 5:10; Eph. 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:10. (2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it to consist alone of the true, spiritual people of God as such.--Eph. 5:27; 1 Pet. 2:5; John 10:27; Col. 1:18,24. (3.) The epistles are addressed to the church, and in their salutations explain that phrase as equivalent to "the called,""the saints,""all true worshippers of God;" witness the salutations of 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2nd Peter and Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles.-- 1 Cor. 1:30; 3:16; 6:11,19; Eph. 2:3-8, and 19-22; 1 Thess. 5:4,5; 2 Thess. 2:13; Col. 1:21; 2:10; 1 Pet. 2:9.

5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices of presbyter and deacon (1 Tim. 3:1-13), there are no directions given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued existence of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name and the thing ceased. (4.) No one ever claiming to be one of their successors have possessed the "signs of an apostle."--2 Cor. 12:12; 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:1,12; Acts 1:21,22.

6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, is utterly unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Scripture. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the bishops, expressed in their general consent, it is unscriptural for the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, since their universal judgment never has been and never can be impartially collected and pronounced.

7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self- consistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught different doctrines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms the infallibility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time teaches a system plainly and radically inconsistent with their manifest sense; witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the mass, penance, of works, and of Mary worship. Therefore the Church of Rome hides the Scriptures from the people.

8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual religion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously the reverse. If; therefore, we admit that the Romish system is true, we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity itself; viz., the self-evidencing light and practical power of true religion, and the witness of the Holy Ghost.

[b:816f29f7fc]19. By what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Scriptures are the final judge of controversies be established?[/b:816f29f7fc]

That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for themselves, and that in all questions as to God's revealed will the appeal is to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following facts:

1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13.

2nd. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above, question 13.

3rd. All Christians are commanded to search the scriptures, and by them to judge all doctrines and all professed teachers.--John 5:39; Acts 17:11; Gal. 1:8; 2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1,2.

4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and interpreter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John 20:23 with Luke 24:47-49; 1 John 2:20,27; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17.

5th. Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Christian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself; on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could not be a moral act, nor could it "purify the heart." Faith derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately apprehends on its own experimental evidence.--John 17:17, 19; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:22.

[b:816f29f7fc]20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doctrine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for believing that the scriptures are the word of God?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Their objection is, that as we receive the scriptures as the word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church, our faith in the Scriptures is only another form of our faith in the church, and the authority of the church, being the foundation of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount.

This is absurd, for two reasons--

1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the church, but--(1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, as is evident (a) from the nature of their doctrine, (b) from their miracles, (c) their prophecies, (d) our personal experience and observation of the power of the truth. (2.) These very writings which we possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is evident, (a) from internal evidence, (b) from historical testimony rendered by all competent cotemporaneous witnesses in the church or out of it.

2nd. Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church's testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogenitor of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.

[b:816f29f7fc]21. How is the argument for the necessity of a visible judge, derived from the diversities of sects and doctrines among Protestants, to be answered?[/b:816f29f7fc]

1st. We do not pretend that the private judgment of Protestants is infallible, but only that when exercised in a humble, believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of essential truth.

2nd. The term Protestant is simply negative, and is assumed by many infidels who protest as much against the Scriptures as they do against Rome. But Bible Protestants, among all their circumstantial differences, are, to a wonderful degree, agreed upon the essentials of faith and practice. Witness their hymns and devotional literature.

3rd. The diversity that does actually exist arises from failure in applying faithfully the Protestant principles for which we contend. Men do not simply and without prejudice take their creed from the Bible.

4th. The Catholic church, in her last and most authoritative utterance through the Council of Trent, has proved herself a most indefinite Judge. Her doctrinal decisions need an infallible interpreter infinitely more than the Scriptures.

[b:816f29f7fc]22. How may it be shown that the Romanist theory, as well as the Protestant, necessarily throws upon the people the obligation of private judgment?[/b:816f29f7fc]

Is there a God? Has he revealed himself? Has he established a church? Is that church an infallible teacher? Is private judgment a blind leader? Which of all pretended churches is the true one? Every one of these questions evidently must be settled in the Private judgment of the inquirer, before he can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment to the direction of the self-asserting church. Thus of necessity Romanists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures cannot be understood, and address arguments to the private judgment of men to prove that private judgment is incompetent; thus basing an argument upon that which it is the object of the argument to prove is baseless.

[b:816f29f7fc]23. How may it be proved that the people are far more competent to discover what the Bible teaches than to decide, by the marks insisted upon by the Romanists, which is the true church?[/b:816f29f7fc]

The Romanists, of necessity, set forth certain marks by which the true church is to be discriminated from all counterfeits. These are (1.) Unity (through subjection to one visible head, the Pope); (2.) Holiness; (3.) Catholicity; (4.) Apostolicity, (involving an uninterrupted succession from the apostles of canonically ordained bishops.)--"Cat. of Council of Trent," Part 1., Cap. 10. Now, the comprehension and intelligent application of these marks involve a great amount of learning and intelligent capacity upon the part of the inquirer. He might as easily prove himself to be descended from Noah by an unbroken series of legitimate marriages, as establish the right of Rome to the last mark. Yet he cannot rationally give up the right of studying the Bible for himself until that point is made clear.

Surely the Scriptures, with their self-evidencing spiritual power, make less exhaustive demands upon the resources of private judgment.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AS TO THE PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, AND AS TO TRADITION, AND AS TO THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE.

1st. AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.--"Decrees of council of Trent," Sess. 4.--"Moreover the same sacred and holy Synod ordains and declares, that the said old and Vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions held as authentic; and that no one is to dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees that no one, relying on his own skill shall in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother church--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy scriptures--hath held and doth hold, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published."

"Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican council," ch. 2.--"And as the things which the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, we, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the sacred scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. "

2nd. AS TO TRADITION.--"Prof. Fidei Tridentinoe"--(A. D. 1564) 2. and 3. "I most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolic and ecclesiastic traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. I also admit the Holy scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures, neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according, to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

"Council of Trent," Sess. 4.--"And seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or from the apostles themselves the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us transmitted as it were from hand to hand."

3rd. AS TO THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE.--"Dogmatic Decisions of the Vatican Council," chap. 3.--"Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord . . . the power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is immediate, to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. . . . We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may reopen the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review his judgment. Wherefore they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff."

4th. CONCERNING THE ABSOLUTE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE AS THE TEACHER OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.--"Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council," Chap. 4.--"Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed:That the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to he held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine according to faith and morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church. But if any one--which may God avert--presume to contradict this our definition:let him be anathema."

Cardinal Manning in his "Vatican Council" says, "In this definition there are six points to be noted:"

"1st. It defines the meaning of the well-known phrase loquens ex cathedra ; that is, speaking from the Seat, or place, or with the authority of the supreme teacher of all Christians, and binding the assent of the universal Church."

"2nd. The subject matter of the infallible teaching, namely, the doctrine of faith and morals."

"3rd. The efficient cause of infallibility, that is, the divine assistance promised to Peter, and in Peter to his successors."

"4th. The act to which this divine assistance is attached, the defining of doctrines of faith and morals."

"5th. The extension of this infallible authority to the limits of the doctrinal office of the Church."

"6th. The dogmatic value of the definitions ex cathedra, namely that they are in themselves irreformable, because in themselves infallible, and not because the Church, or any part or member of the Church, should assent to them."

"Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican Council" Ch. 4.--"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation they might make known new doctrine; but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles."

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm[/quote:816f29f7fc]

Hodge would vote with me for Tradition 0. In fact, Hodge would identify Tradition 1 as Roman Heresy!!

If we must add tradition and history then we must decide which tradition and history. Who decides? Whoch church, which denomination, which creed, which confession?

It is Scripture ALONE that binds the conscience of men.

Phillip

[Edited on 3-26-04 by pastorway]

 

[pastorway]

John MacArthur on the Sufficiency of the Written Word

This is chapter 5 of the book [i:ca365d9043]Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible[/i:ca365d9043], an excellent book defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura! Contact Soli Deo Gloria Publications to order this book. Different prominent Protestant authors have written each chapter.

[quote:ca365d9043]The tendency to venerate tradition is very strong in religion. The world is filled with religions that have been following set traditions for hundreds -- even thousands -- of years. Cultures come and go, but religious tradition shows an amazing continuity.

In fact, many ancient religions -- including Druidism, Native American religions, and several of the oriental cults -- eschewed written records of their faith, preferring to pass down their legends and rituals and dogmas via word of mouth. Such religions usually treat their body of traditions as a de facto authority equal to other religions' sacred writings.

Even among the world's religions that revere sacred writings, however, tradition and Scripture are often blended. This is true in Hinduism, for example, where the ancient Vedas are the Scriptures, and traditions handed down by gurus round out the faith of most followers.

Tradition in effect becomes a lens through which the written word is interpreted. Tradition therefore stands as the highest of all authorities, because it renders the only authoritative interpretation of the sacred writings.

This tendency to view tradition as supreme authority is not unique to pagan religions. Traditional Judaism, for example, follows the Scripture-plus-tradition paradigm. The familiar books of the Old Testament alone are viewed as Scripture, but true orthodoxy is actually defined by a collection of ancient rabbinical traditions known as the Talmud. In effect, the traditions of the Talmud carry an authority equal to or greater than that of the inspired Scriptures.

Teaching as Doctrines the Precepts of Men
This is no recent development within Judaism. The Jews of Jesus' day also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture. Rather, in effect, they made tradition superior to Scripture, because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it.

Whenever tradition is elevated to such a high level of authority, it inevitably becomes detrimental to the authority of Scripture. Jesus made this very point when he confronted the Jewish leaders. He showed that in many cases their traditions actually nullified Scripture. He therefore rebuked them in the harshest terms:

"Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."

"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother, thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that (Mark 7:6 -- 13).

It was inexcusable that tradition would be elevated to the level of Scripture in Judaism, because when God gave the law to Moses, it was in written form for a reason: to make it permanent and inviolable. The Lord made very plain that the truth He was revealing was not to be tampered with, augmented, or diminished in any way. His Word was the final authority in all matters: "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2). They were to observe His commandments assiduously, and neither supplement nor abrogate them by any other kind of "authority": "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it" (Deuteronomy 12:32).

So the revealed Word of God, and nothing else, was the supreme and sole authority in Judaism. This alone was the standard of truth delivered to them by God Himself. Moses was instructed to write down the very words God gave him (Exodus 34:27), and that written record of God's Word became the basis for God's covenant with the nation (Exodus 24:4, 7). The written Word was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:9), symbolizing its supreme authority in the lives and the worship of the Jews forever. God even told Moses' successor, Joshua: "Be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success wherever you go. This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night., so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it" Joshua 1:7 -- 8).

Of course, other books of inspired Scripture beside those written by Moses were later added to the Jewish canon -- but this was a prerogative reserved by God alone. Sola Scriptura was therefore established in principle with the giving of the law. No tradition passed down by word of mouth, no rabbinical opinion, and no priestly innovation was to be accorded authority equal to the revealed Word of God as recorded in Scripture.

Agur understood this principle: "Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:5 -- 6).

The Scriptures therefore were to be the one standard by which everyone who claimed to speak for God was tested: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20, KJV).

In short, tradition had no legitimate place of authority in the worship of Jehovah. Everything was to be tested by the Word of God as recorded in the Scriptures. That's why Jesus' rebuke to the scribes and Pharisees was so harsh. Their very faith in Rabbinical tradition was in and of itself a serious transgression of the covenant and commandments of God (cf. Matthew 15:3).

The Rise and Ruin of Catholic Tradition

Unfortunately, Christianity has often followed the same tragic road as paganism and Judaism in its tendency to elevate tradition to a position of authority equal to or greater than Scripture. The Catholic Church in particular has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud: it is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted. In effect, tradition supplants the voice of Scripture itself.

How did this happen? As James White has demonstrated in his chapter on "Sola Scriptura and the Early Church," the earliest church Fathers placed a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture over verbal tradition. Fierce debates raged in the early church over such crucial matters as the deity of Christ, His two natures, the Trinity, and the doctrine of original sin. Early church councils settled those questions by appealing to Scripture as the highest of all authorities. The councils themselves did not merely issue ex cathedra decrees, but they reasoned things out by Scripture and made their rulings accordingly. The authority was in the appeal to Scripture, not in the councils per se.

Unfortunately, the question of Scriptural authority itself was not always clearly delineated in the early church, and as the church grew in power and influence, church leaders began to assert an authority that had no basis in Scripture. The church as an institution became in many people's eyes the fountain of authority and the arbiter on all matters of truth. Appeals began to be made more often to tradition than to Scripture. As a result, extrabiblical doctrines were canonized and a body of opinion that found no support in Scripture began to be asserted as infallibly true.

Roman Catholic doctrine is shot through with legends and dogmas and superstitions that have no biblical basis whatsoever. The stations of the cross, the veneration of saints and angels, the Marian doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the notion that Mary is co-mediatrix with Christ -- none of those doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture. They are the product of Roman Catholic tradition.

Officially, the Catholic Church is very straightforward about her blending of Scripture and tradition. The recently published Catechism of the Catholic Church (henceforth CCC, citations referring to paragraph numbers rather than page numbers) acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition. must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence" (CCC 82, emphasis added).

Tradition, according to Roman Catholicism, is therefore as much "the Word of God" as Scripture. According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture "are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well- spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal" (CCC 80). The "sacred deposit of faith" -- this admixture of Scripture and tradition -- was supposedly entrusted by the apostles to their successors (CCC 84), and "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.... This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" (CCC 85).

The Catechism is quick to deny that this makes the Church's teaching authority (called the magisterium) in any way superior to the Word of God itself (CCC 86). But it then goes on to warn the faithful that they must "read the Scripture within 'the living tradition of the whole Church' " (CCC 113). The Catechism at this point quotes "a saying of the Fathers[:] Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word" (CCC 113).

So in effect, tradition is not only made equal to Scripture, but it becomes the true Scripture, written not in documents, but mystically within the Church herself. And when the Church speaks, her voice is heard as if it were the voice of God, giving the only true meaning to the words of the "documents and records." Thus tradition utterly supplants and supersedes Scripture.



Modern Catholic Apologetics and Sola Scriptura
In other words, the official Catholic position on Scripture is that Scripture does not and cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted by the Church's teaching authority and in light of "living tradition." De facto this says that Scripture has no inherent authority, but like all spiritual truth, it derives its authority from the Church. Only what the Church says is deemed the true Word of God, the "Sacred Scripture... written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records."

This position obviously emasculates Scripture. That is why the Catholic stance against Sola Scriptura has always posed a major problem for Roman Catholic apologists. On one hand faced with the task of defending Catholic doctrine, and on the other hand desiring to affirm what Scripture says about itself, they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible's true meaning. Quite plainly, that makes tradition a superior authority. Moreover, in effect it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tradition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant. Understandably, sola Scriptura has therefore always been a highly effective argument for defenders of the Reformation.

So it is not hard to understand why in recent years Catholic apologists have attacked sola Scriptura with a vengeance. If they can topple this one doctrine, all the Reformers' other points fall with it. For under the Catholic system, whatever the Church says must be the standard by which to interpret all Scripture. Tradition is the "true" Scripture, written in the heart of the Church. The Church -- not Scripture written in "documents and records" -- defines the truth about justification by faith, veneration of saints, transubstantiation, and a host of other issues that divided the Reformers from Rome.

To put it another way, if we accept the voice of the Church as infallibly correct, then what Scripture says about these questions is ultimately irrelevant. And in practice this is precisely what happens. To cite but one example, Scripture very plainly says, "There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Nonetheless, the Catholic Church insists that Mary is her Son's "co-mediatrix."(1)

And in the eyes of millions of Catholics, what the Church says is seen as the final and authoritative Word of God. First Timothy 2:5 is thus nullified by Church tradition.

Obviously, if Rome can prove her case against sola Scriptura, she overturns all the arguments for the Reformation in one fell swoop. If she can establish her tradition as an infallible authority, no mere biblical argument would have any effect against the dictates of the Church.

Modern Roman Catholic apologists have therefore mounted a carefully focused attack against sola Scriptura. Hoping to turn the Reformation's greatest strength into an argument against the Reformation, they have begun to argue that it is possible to debunk sola Scriptura by using Scripture alone! This line of argument is now being employed by Catholics against evangelicalism in practically every conceivable forum.

For example, these excerpts are from some articles posted on the Internet:

The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority -- sola Scriptura -- is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatement), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola Scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation.(2)

The Bible nowhere teaches that it is the sole authority in matters of belief. In fact, the Bible teaches that Tradition -- the oral teachings given by Jesus to the apostles and their successors, the bishops -- is a parallel source of authentic belief. [Quotations from 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2 follow].(3)

From some books written by Catholic apologists:

Nowhere does [the Bible] reduce God's Word down to Scripture alone. Instead, the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is to be found in the church: her tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6) as well as her preaching and teaching (1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:20 -- 21; Matthew 18:17).

That's why I think the Bible supports the Catholic principle of sola verbum Dei, "the Word of God alone" [with "Word of God" encompassing both tradition and Scripture], rather than the Protestant slogan, sola scriptura, "Scripture alone."(4)

The Bible actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ's work is in Scripture John 21:25), and Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition that is handed down by word of mouth (2 Timothy 2:2). He instructs us to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). We are told that the first Christians "were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles" (Acts 2:42), which was the oral teaching given long before the New Testament was written -- and centuries before the canon of the New Testament was settled.(5)

And from a public debate on the question of sola Scriptura:

Sola Scriptura itself must be proved from Scripture alone. And if it can't be done, sola scriptura is a self-refuting proposition, and therefore it is false.(6)

[In] 2 Thessalonians 2: 15, Paul commands the Church to stand firm and hold fast in the traditions that they had been given, whether orally, spoken, or through an epistle of theirs. So in other words, tradition is one major category, and there are two subsets in the one category: oral tradition, written tradition. That's what the Word of God says.(7)

Many of these claims will be refuted elsewhere in this book. My main focus will be on explaining the biblical passages cited in support of the Catholic veneration of tradition. But allow me a brief summary response to the thrust of all these arguments.

The Sufficiency of Scripture

First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that "scientific truth" for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture -- but Scripture is a "more sure Word," standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is "more sure," according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Peter 1:19). Therefore, Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Revelation 22:18 -- 19). To do so is to lay on people's shoulders a burden that God Him-self does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matthew 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That -- no more, no less -- is what sola Scriptura means.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture in this way: "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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" (article 6).

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture John 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles' actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture -- and we are forbidden "to exceed what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6).

As other chapters in this volume have demonstrated and will demonstrate, Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency -- and nowhere more clearly than 2 Timothy 3:15 -- 17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: "The sacred writings... are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is "God-breathed" (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God "for every good work." So the assertion that the Bible itself does not teach Sola Scriptura is simply wrong.

How Do We Know the Doctrine of the Apostles?
Now let's examine the key Scriptures Rome cites to try to justify the existence of extrabiblical tradition. Since many of these passages are similar, it will suffice to reply to the main ones. First we'll examine the key verses that speak of how apostolic doctrine was transmitted, and then we'll explore what the apostle Paul meant when he spoke of "tradition."

2 Timothy 2:2: "The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." Here the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, a young pastor, to train other faithful men for the task of leadership in the church. There is no hint of apostolic succession in this verse, nor is there any suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them an infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God.

On the contrary, what this verse describes is simply the process of discipleship. Far from imparting to these men some apostolic authority that would guarantee their infallibility, Timothy was to choose men who had proved themselves faithful, teach them the gospel, and equip them in the principles of church leadership he had learned from Paul. What Timothy was to entrust to them was the essential truth Paul himself had preached "in the presence of many witnesses."

What was this truth? It was not some undisclosed tradition, such as the Assumption of Mary, which would be either unheard of or disputed for centuries until a pope declared ex cathedra that it was truth. What Timothy was to hand on to other men was the same doctrine Paul had preached before "many witnesses." Paul was speaking of the gospel itself. It was the same message Paul commanded Timothy to preach, and it is the same message that is preserved in Scripture and sufficient to equip every man of God (2 Timothy 3:16 -- 4:2).

In short, this verse is wholly irrelevant to the Catholic claim that tradition received from the apostles is preserved infallibly by her bishops. Nothing in this verse suggests that the truth Timothy would teach other faithful men would be preserved without error from generation to generation. That is indeed what Scripture says of itself: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching" (2 Timothy 3:16), but no such assertion is ever made for tradition handed down orally.

Like Timothy, we are to guard the truth that has been entrusted to us. But the only reliable canon, the only infallible doctrine, the only binding principles, and the only saving message, is the God-breathed truth of Scripture.

Acts 2:42: "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." This verse simply states that the early church followed the apostles' teaching as their rule of faith. Once again this passage says nothing about apostolic succession and contains no hint of a guarantee that "the apostles' teaching" would be infallibly preserved through any means other than Scripture.

Note also that this verse describes the attitude of the earliest converts to Christianity. The "they" at the beginning of the verse refers back to verse 41 and the three thousand souls who were converted at Pentecost. These were for the most part rank-and-file lay people. And their one source of Christian doctrine (this was before any of the New Testament had been penned) was the oral teaching of the apostles.

This verse is even more irrelevant to the question of infallible tradition than 2 Timothy 2:2. The only point it asserts that is remotely germane to the issue is that the source of authority for the early church was apostolic teaching. No one who holds to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura would dispute that point. Let it be stated as clearly as possible: Protestants do not deny that the oral teaching of the apostles was authoritative, inerrant truth, binding as a rule of faith on those who heard it. Moreover, if there were any promise in Scripture that the exact words or full sense of the apostolic message would be infallibly preserved through word of mouth by an unbroken succession of bishops, we would be bound to obey that tradition as a rule of faith.

Scripture, however, which is God-breathed, never speaks of any other God-breathed authority; it never authorizes us to view tradition on an equal or superior plane of authority; and while it makes the claim of inerrancy for itself, it never acknowledges any other infallible source of authority. Word-of-mouth tradition is never said to be theopneustos, God-breathed, or infallible.

What Tradition Did Paul Command Adherence To?
We've already noted, however, that Catholic apologists claim they do see verses in Scripture that accord authority to tradition. Even non-Catholic versions of Scripture, speak of a certain "tradition" that is to be received and obeyed with unquestioning reverence.

What of these verses? Protestants often find them difficult to explain, but in reality they make better arguments against the Catholic position than they do against sola Scriptura. Let's examine the main ones:

1 Corinthians 11:2: "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." Those words of Paul to the Corinthians speak of tradition, do they not?

Yet as is often true, the meaning is plain when we look at the context. And examining the context, we discover this verse offers no support whatsoever for the Roman Catholic notion of infallible tradition.

First of all, the apostle is speaking not of traditions passed down to the Corinthians by someone else through word of mouth. This "tradition" is nothing other than doctrine the Corinthians had heard directly from Paul's own lips during his ministry in their church. The Greek word translated "traditions" is paradosis, translated "ordinances" in the King James Version. The Greek root contains the idea of transmission, and the idea is no doubt doctrine that was transmitted by oral means. In this case, however, it refers only to Paul's own preaching -- not to someone else's report of what Paul taught.

The Corinthians had had the privilege of sitting under the apostle Paul's ministry for a year and a half (Acts 18:11), so it is ironic that of all the churches described in the New Testament, Corinth was one of the most problematic. Paul's first epistle to this church deals with a series of profound problems related to church discipline and practice, including serious sin in their midst, disunity among the brethren, disorder in church meetings, Christians who were taking one another to court, abuse of spiritual gifts, and so on. Second Corinthians is an extended defense of Paul's ministry in the face of opposition and hostility. Someone in the church -- possibly even someone whom Paul had entrusted with a position of leadership -- had evidently fomented a rebellion against Paul during his long absence.

The Corinthians knew Paul. He had been their pastor. Yet they were obviously slipping away from the moorings he had so carefully established during his pastorate there. Far from being instruments through which Paul's tradition was infallibly preserved and handed down, the Corinthians were rebelling against his apostleship! That is why Paul encouraged them to remember what he had heard from them and follow it to the letter. What did he teach during that year and a half in their midst? We have no way of knowing precisely, but we have every reason to believe that the substance of his teaching was the same truth that is recorded throughout his epistles and elsewhere in the New Testament. Once again, we do know for certain that everything essential for thoroughly equipping Christians for life and godliness was preserved in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15 -- 17). The rest is not recorded for us, and nothing anywhere in Scripture indicates that it was handed down through oral tradition -- especially not through any means that guaranteed it would be inspired and infallible.

I Corinthians 11:2 in particular teaches no such thing. It is nothing but Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians that they remember and obey his apostolic teaching. It reflects Paul's own personal struggle to protect and preserve the doctrinal tradition he had carefully established in Corinth. But again, there is no implication whatsoever that Paul expected this tradition to be infallibly preserved through any inspired means other than Scripture. On the contrary, Paul was concerned lest his ministry among the Corinthians prove to have been in vain (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:1).

2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." This is perhaps the favorite verse of Catholic apologists when they want to support the Catholic appeal to tradition, because the verse plainly delineates between the written word and oral "traditions."

Again the Greek word is paradosis. Clearly, the apostle is speaking of doctrine, and it is not to be disputed that the doctrine he has in mind is authoritative, inspired truth.

So what is this inspired tradition that they received "by word of mouth"? Doesn't this verse rather clearly support the Catholic position?

No, it does not. Again, the context is essential to a clear understanding of what Paul was saying. The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly from the apostle Paul, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thessalonians 2:2).

The entire church had apparently been upset by this, and the apostle Paul was eager to encourage them. For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony "inspired truth." And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him -- it would be signed in his own handwriting: "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write" (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.

But even more important, he wanted them to stand fast in the teaching they had already received from him. He had already told them, for example, that the day of the Lord would be preceded by a falling away, and the unveiling of the man of lawlessness. "Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?" 2:5). There was no excuse for them to be troubled by a phony letter, for they had heard the actual truth from his own mouth already.

Now, no one -- even the most impassioned champion of sola Scriptura -- would deny that Paul had taught the Thessalonians many things by word of mouth. No one would deny that the teaching of an apostle carried absolute authority. The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth. So the mere reference to truth received firsthand from Paul himself is, again, irrelevant as support for the Catholic position.

Certainly nothing here suggests that the tradition Paul delivered to the Thessalonians is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself. In fact, the real thrust of what Paul is writing here is antithetical to the spirit of Roman Catholic tradition. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second or third hand reports. On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips.

Paul was very concerned to correct the Thessalonians' tendency to be led astray by false epistles and spurious tradition. From the very beginning the Thessalonians had not responded to the gospel message as nobly as the Bereans, who "received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).

It is highly significant that the Bereans are explicitly commended for examining the apostolic message in light of Scripture. They had the priority right: Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, by which everything else is to be tested. Unsure of whether they could trust the apostolic message -- which, by the way, was as inspired and infallible and true as Scripture itself -- the Bereans erased all their doubt by double-checking the message against Scripture. Yet Roman Catholics are forbidden by their Church to take such an approach! They are told that the Church through her bishops dispenses the only true and infallible understanding of Scripture.

Therefore it is pointless to test the Catholic Church's message by Scripture; for if there appears to be a conflict -- and make no mistake, there are many -- Rome says her traditions carry more weight than her critics' interpretation of Scripture.

What the Apostle was telling the Thessalonians was nothing like what Rome tells faithful Catholics. Paul was urging the Thessalonians to test all truth-claims by Scripture, and by the words they had heard personally from his own lips. And since the only words of the apostles that are infallibly preserved for us are found in Scripture, that means that we, like the Bereans, must compare everything with Scripture to see whether it is so.

Roman Catholic apologists protest that only a fraction of Paul's messages to the Thessalonians are preserved in the two brief epistles Paul wrote to that church. True, but may not we assume that what he taught the Thessalonians was the very truths that are found in generous measure throughout all his epistles -- justification by faith alone, the true gospel of grace, the sovereignty of God, the Lordship of Christ, and a host of other truths? The New Testament gives us a full-orbed Christian theology. Who can prove that anything essential is omitted? On the contrary, we are assured that Scripture is sufficient for salvation and spiritual life (2 Timothy 3:15 -- 17). Where does Scripture ever suggest that there are unwritten truths that are necessary for our spiritual well-being? One thing is certain -- the words in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 imply no such thing.

2 Thessalonians 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." This is the only other verse in all the New Testament where Paul uses the words tradition or traditions to speak of apostolic truth that is to be obeyed.

By now, Paul's use of this term should be well established. This cannot be a reference to truth passed down from generation to generation. Again, Paul is speaking of a "tradition" received firsthand from him.

This is the closing section of the epistle. Paul is summing up. And he once again underscores the importance of the teaching the Thessalonians had received directly from his mouth. The "tradition" he speaks of here is doctrine so crucial that anyone who refuses to heed it and live by it should be rejected from the fellowship.

What is this "tradition"? Is it Marian theology, or dogma about the efficacy of relics, or other teachings unique to Roman Catholicism? Not at all -- it is simple, practical apostolic doctrine, taught and lived out by example while Paul was among the Thessalonians. Paul goes on to define specifically what "tradition" he has in mind:

We did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good (3:7 -- 13).

In other words, Paul was speaking of simple, practical doctrine about stewardship of one's time, a man's responsibility to work and provide for his family, and personal discipline in daily life. These truths are now part of holy Scripture, by virtue of Paul's including them in this epistle. Put that together with everything else the New Testament records, and you have every part of the apostolic message that was infallibly preserved for us.

Is the sum of Scriptural truth a sufficient rule of faith for the Christian? We have the Bible's own assurance that it is. Scripture alone is sufficient to lead us to salvation and fully equip us for life and eternity (2 Timothy 3:15 -- 17). Therefore we may know with certainty that every essential aspect of the apostolic message is included in Scripture.

Note that Paul clearly regarded his epistles as inspired, authoritative Scripture. He charged the Thessalonians with these instructions: "And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame" (2 Thessalonians 3:14).

So the written words of Scripture are binding. Apostolic preaching was equally binding for those who heard it from the apostles' own mouths. Beyond that, Scripture lays no burden on anyone's shoulders. But, thank God, His own Word assures us that Scripture is fully sufficient to bring us to salvation and to equip us spiritually for all that God demands of us.

No man, no church, no religious authority has any warrant from God to augment the inspired Word of Scripture with additional traditions, or to alter the plain sense of it by subjecting it to the rigors of a "traditional" meaning not found in the Word itself. To do so is clearly to invalidate the Word of God -- and we know what our Lord thinks of that (Matthew 15:6 -- 9).



1 From the Vatican II documents, Lumen Gentium, 62.

2 From an article by George Sim Johnston posted on the Catholic Information Network.

3 From a tract issued by Catholic Answers.

4 Scott Hahn, Rome Sweet Home (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993) p. 74.

5 Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988) p. 136.

6 Patrick Madrid, in a debate with James White. Information on ordering this tape can be had by writing Alpha and Omega Ministries, P.O. Box 37106, Phoenix, AZ 85069.

7 Ibid.

This article is from Chapter 5 of Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, an excellent book defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura! and is highly recommended by this site. Contact Soli Deo Gloria Publications to order this book.

Special thanks to Don Kistler, Phil Johnson, and especially Dr. John F. MacArthur Jr., for making this article available.

http://www.mbrem.com/bible/sufficn.htm[/quote:ca365d9043]

Sounds like another vote for Tradition 0.

Phillip

(interesting that we have to turn to apologetics against the RCC to argue against the position of Tradition 1, isn't it?!)

[Edited on 3-26-04 by pastorway]

 

[pastorway]

Charles Hodge Votes Tradition 0

From [i:5bffb1cbed]The Protestant Rule Of Faith[/i:5bffb1cbed] by Charles Hodge:

[quote:5bffb1cbed]Perspicuity of the Scriptures. The Right of Private Judgment.

The Bible is a plain book. It is intelligible by the people. And they have the right, and are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church. Such is the doctrine of Protestants on this subject.

It is not denied that the Scriptures contain many things hard to be understood; that they require diligent study; that all men need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to right knowledge and true faith. But it is maintained that in all things necessary to salvation they are sufficiently plain to be understood even by the unlearned.

It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church. If the Scriptures be a plain book, and the Spirit performs the functions of a teacher to all the children of God, it follows inevitably that they must agree in all essential matters in their interpretation of the Bible. And from that fact it follows that for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i. e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves.

What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.

The arguments in support of the former of these positions have already been presented in the discussion concerning the infallibility of the Church. The most obvious reasons in support of the right of private judgment are,--

1. That the obligations to faith and obedience are personal. Every man is responsible for his religious faith and his moral conduct. He cannot transfer that responsibility to others; nor can others assume it in his stead. He must answer for himself; and if he must answer for himself, he must judge for himself. It will not avail him in the day of judgment to say that his parents or his Church taught him wrong. He should have listened to God, and obeyed Him rather than men.

2. The Scriptures are everywhere addressed to the people, and not to the officers of the Church either exclusively, or specially. The prophets were sent to the people, and constantly said, "Hear, 0 Israel," "Hearken, 0 ye people." Thus, also, the discourses of Christ were addressed to the people, and the people heard him gladly. All the Epistles of the New Testament are addressed to the congregation, to the "called of Jesus Christ;" "to the beloved of God;" to those "called to be saints;" "to the sanctified in Christ Jesus;" "to all who call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord; " "to the saints which are in (Ephesus), and to the faithful in Jesus Christ;" or "to the saints and faithful brethren which are in (Colosse);" and so in every instance. It is the people who are addressed. To them are directed these profound discussions of Christian doctrine, and these comprehensive expositions of Christian duty. They are everywhere assumed to be competent to understand what is written, and are everywhere required to believe and obey what thus came from the inspired messengers of Christ. They were not referred to any other authority from which they were to learn the true import of these inspired instructions. It is, therefore, not only to deprive the people of a divine right, to forbid the people to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves; but it is also to interpose between them and God, and to prevent their hearing his voice, that they may listen to the words of men.


The People commanded to search the Scriptures.
3. The Scriptures are not only addressed to the people, but the people were called upon to study them, and to teach them unto their children. It was one of the most frequently recurring injunctions to parents under the old dispensation, to teach the Law unto their children, that they again might teach it unto theirs. The "holy oracles" were committed to the people, to be taught by the people; and taught immediately out of the Scriptures, that the truth might be retained in its purity. Thus our Lord commanded the people to search the Scriptures, saying, "They are they which testify of me." (John v. 39.) He assumed that they were able to understand what the Old Testament said of the Messiah, although its teachings had been misunderstood by the scribes and elders, and by the whole Sanhedrim. Paul rejoiced that Timothy had from his youth known the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation. He said to the Galatians (i. 8, 9), "Though we, or an angel from heaven, -- if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." This implies two things, -- first, that the Galatian Christians, the people, had a right to sit in judgment on the teaching of an Apostle, or of an angel from heaven; and secondly, that they had an infallible rule by which that judgment was to be determined, namely, a previous authenticated revelation of God. If, then, the Bible recognizes the right of the people to judge of the teaching of Apostles and angels, they are not to be denied the right of judging of the doctrines of bishops and priests. The principle laid down by the Apostle is precisely that long before given by Moses (Deut. xiii. 1 -- 3), who tells the people that if a prophet should arise, although he worked wonders, they were not to believe or obey him, if he taught them anything contrary to the Word of God. This again assumes that the people had the ability and the right to judge, and that they had an infallible rule of judgment. It implies, moreover, that their salvation depended upon their judging rightly. For if they allowed these false teachers, robed in sacred vestments, and surrounded by the insignia of authority, to lead them from the truth, they would inevitably perish.

4. It need hardly be remarked that this right of private judgment is the great safeguard of civil and religious liberty. If the Bible be admitted to be the infallible rule of faith and practice in accordance with which men are bound on the peril of their souls, to frame their creed and conduct; and if there be a set of men who have the exclusive right of interpreting the Scripture, and who are authorized to impose their interpretations on the people as of divine authority, then they may impose on them what conditions of salvation they see fit. And the men who have the salvation of the people in their hands are their absolute masters. Both reason and experience fully sustain the dictum of Chillingworth,' when he says, " He that would usurp an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannulling the laws, made to maintain the common liberty; for he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own design as well, if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases, and add to them what he pleases, and to have his interpretations and additions stand for laws; if he can rule his people by his laws, and his laws by his lawyers." This is precisely what the Church of Rome has done, and thereby established a tyranny for which there is no parallel in the history of the world. What renders this tyranny the more intolerable, is, that, so far as the mass of the people is concerned, it resolves itself into the authority of the parish priest. He is the arbiter of the faith and morals of his people. No man can believe unless the ground of faith is present to his mind. If the people are to believe that the Scriptures teach certain doctrines, then they must have the evidence that such doctrines are really taught in the Bible. If that evidence be that the Church so interprets the sacred writings, then the people must know what is the Church, i. e., which of the bodies claiming to be the Church, is entitled to be so regarded. How are the people, the uneducated masses, to determine that question? The priest tells them. If they receive his testimony on that point, then how can they tell how the Church interprets the Scriptures? Here again they must take the word of the priest. Thus the authority of the Church as an interpreter, which appears so imposing, resolves itself into the testimony of the priest, who is often wicked, and still oftener ignorant. This cannot be the foundation of the faith of God's elect. That foundation is the testimony of God himself speaking his word, and authenticated as divine by the testimony of the Spirit with and by the truth in the heart of the believer.



6. Rules of Interpretation.

If every man has the right, and is bound to read the Scriptures, and to judge for himself what they teach, he must have certain rules to guide him in the exercise of this privilege and duty. These rules are not arbitrary. They are not imposed by human authority. They have no binding force which does not flow from their own intrinsic truth and propriety. They are few and simple.

1. The words of Scripture are to be taken in their plain historical sense. That is, they must be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. This only assumes that the sacred writers were honest, and meant to be understood.

2. If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject. If the Scriptures teach that the Son is the same in substance and equal in power and glory with the Father, then when the Son says, "The Father is greater than I," the superiority must be understood in a manner consistent with this equality. It must refer either to subordination as to the mode of subsistence and operation, or it must be official. A king's son may say, "My father is greater than I," although personally his father's equal. This rule of interpretation is sometimes called the analogy of Scripture, and sometimes the analogy of faith. There is no material difference in the meaning of the two expressions.

3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. The ground of this rule is twofold: First, the Spirit is promised as a guide and teacher. He was to come to lead the people of God into the knowledge of the truth. And secondly, the Scriptures teach, that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. ii. 14.) The unrenewed mind is naturally blind to spiritual truth. His heart is in opposition to the things of God. Congeniality of mind is necessary to the proper apprehension of divine things. As only those who have a moral nature can discern moral truth, so those only who are spiritually minded can truly receive the things of the Spirit.

The fact that all the true people of God in every age and in every part of the Church, in the exercise of their private judgment, in accordance with the simple rules above stated, agree as to the meaning of Scripture in all things necessary either in faith or practice, is a decisive proof of the perspicuity of the Bible, and of the safety of allowing the people the enjoyment of the divine right of private judgment.

http://www.mbrem.com/bible/chv1c1.htm[/quote:5bffb1cbed]

 

[pastorway]

Listen to James White online as he defines and defends Sola Scriptura:

http://www.straitgate.com/rcc/radio.htm

 

[Saiph]

Van Til seems to imply we have not only Scriptur(which is the ultimate propositional authority), but also reason, and our senses, and the data of nature, which Scripture also affirms.

The Bible tells me how to interpret reality, and discover truth. It is not the only source of truth though. . . .

(again, I am not saying it is not the most authoritative sources of truth, please do not assume otherwise)

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Wintermute]

 

[kceaster]

Phillip...

You sailed right past it. Not only do you not understand what tradition means, but you have misinterpreted both Hodges.

You are arguing against Tradition II, not tradition I, when you are quoting the Hodges.

AA says,
[quote:decf0953ee]13. By what other arguments may this point be established?

1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men indiscriminately, or else to the whole body of believers as such.--Deut. 6:4-9; Luke 1:3; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 4:2; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 2:12,14; Jude 1:1; Rev. 1:3,4; 2:7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus.

2nd. All Christians indiscriminately are commanded to search the Scriptures.--2 Tim. 3:15,17; Acts 17:11; John 5:39.

[b:decf0953ee]3rd. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property in the sun. The argument to the contrary, is an insult to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers.[/b:decf0953ee]

4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures.[/quote:decf0953ee]

This whole question addresses the correctly held belief of Hodge in Tradition I. You are arguing against what he was arguing against, the Roman Church, not Tradition I.

In your second post, you cite MacArthur who is also arguing against Tradition II. Why do you use him for Tradition I? MacArthur is not arguing against a rule of faith, he is arguing against oral and written tradition outside of Scripture. Tradition I is the rule of faith as it comes from the Scripture Alone.

I think you see tradition and you automatically think traditionalism.

And your third quote from Charles Hodge is the second time we have seen this one, and you have still missed his point. He still disagrees with you.

[quote:decf0953ee]It is not denied that the people, learned and unlearned, in order to the proper understanding of the Scriptures, should not only compare Scripture with Scripture, and avail themselves of all the means in their power to aid them in their search after the truth, [b:decf0953ee]but they should also pay the greatest deference to the faith of the Church.[/b:decf0953ee][/quote:decf0953ee]

This is the regula fidei he is talking about. And the unseen group he is arguing against in this passage is the RCC. Again, not Tradition 1.

Have you even read Mathison? Did you read what was posted on the web?

Are you trying to skew these things, or do you really not understand?

In Christ,

KC

 

[Don A]

Scott wrote:


[quote:caff288f3d]
I disagree that the "true definition" would be "Tradition 0." Also, I would not look to the Catholic network to define Protestant views.
[/quote:caff288f3d]

My point exactly. The reason for my reply is that I can't seem to walk away from a loaded question.

We were asked to define "[b:caff288f3d]Historic[/b:caff288f3d] Sola Scriptura". It all depends on [i:caff288f3d]who's[/i:caff288f3d] history you are referring to.

A Roman Catholic is going to automatically answer "3", maybe "4" based on their history.

A charismatic will most likely answer "4" based on his history [i:caff288f3d](I know, I know, this is a board for Reformed Theology, just bear with me).[/i:caff288f3d]

One who bases their theology on the teaching of the "divines" will always answer "1". Their system demands it.

Others who are reforming (notice I didn't say "Reformed" in the classic sense) choose to accept the cannon of Scripture as final and foremost and the Holy Spirit as their primary guide can, and will, answer "0".

Now, before the flames start flying about how I can be on the PB and then sit and trash all of those who have gone before, please pay attention to what I have said. Nowhere have I slandered the name or reputation of any of the theologians of old (or new). I have, and continue to, read a great deal of material written by men who have been recommended and referred to by the members of this board. I continue to be humbled and fascinated. But in all of these great writers and teachers, I have found not a one that I couldn't live without. Not so with the Bible.

Still, Sola means alone.

 

[pastorway]

Yes, KC, I read what was on the web. And I don't think I am missing what anyone has said.

Here is the clincher for Tradition 1:

What is the[i:3e9ab87330] rule of faith[/i:3e9ab87330]?

Is it the confession? A creed? A man made document? It is [i:3e9ab87330]your tradition[/i:3e9ab87330]?

If so, then one is adding to the Scripture by saying that the church, instead of individual Christians, is responsible for interpreting the Word and binding men's consciences by that interpretation.

That is not Sola Scriptura.

It matters not whether tradition is from the RCC, the PCA, the OPC, the Westminster Divines, the SBC, ARBCA, FIRE, or any other group of men. If it is tradition, it is secondary to Scripture.

I think perhaps it is you who are missing the point. You are saying that we must have the church to have the Word. I am saying that the Word stands alone. Alone. Sola.

I am not arguing against confessions or creeds. I am not advocating blantant Scripture twisting in the name of private interpretation. I am saying that we are all responsible to interpret for ourselves the Word to see if those leading us in the church are rightly teaching it! That is the whole point behind the reference in Acts to the Bereans. The questioned an APOSTLE by going to the Word. Are we then out of line to question the confession by going to the Word? Surely you are not saying that the WCF (history and tradition) trumps the teaching of an Apostle, are you?

Your view of Sola Scripture requires something outside of the Scripture to validate the message. That is not the position of either of the Hodges or anyone else I quoted. Read what they wrote about perspicuity. They stress PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION as the protestant understading of how to use the Bible alone as our rule for faith!

You add [i:3e9ab87330]reformed church tradition[/i:3e9ab87330] to the formula and in so doing replace Sola Scripture with Scripture PLUS church dogma.

Which church? Which history? Which confession and creed? Who decides? You? Me? The Elders of each individual church? Do we vote on it? Or is it by decree?

As has been stated, and as it will continue to be stressed, sola means ALONE. As soon as you add ANYTHING, you violate the principle.

Sola Scriptura, historically and forever, means Scripture Alone.

Phillip

 

[fredtgreco]

I'm not sure that "0" and "1" are properly set forth. There is no one on this board that would choose "0" as it is set forth. Why?

Well, what would happen if you were in a discussion with a JW? Let's say you are discussing the Trinity, and you go back and forth, and [b:614484cb68]surprise![/b:614484cb68] the heretic is not convinced of the Scriptural nature of the Trinity. Do you simply say, "well since the Scriptures are the sole authority and we can't agree, then I guess it must not be clear in the Scriptures." NO! You would appeal to the fact that the Scriptures have always been interpreted by non-heretics as Trinitarian. You would in effect say, "I don't care what you think, you heretic. The bible teaches the Trinity, it always has, and the Church has always interpreted it that way."

Extra-biblical formulations have always been necessary to safeguard what the Bible actually means - just look at Athanasius and Arius. Where o where is "homoousios" ? Yet it IS Biblical, and to deny it is to deny a cardinal doctrine - because to deny it really means that you are denying the Biblilca doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

Now, "1" here is not necessarily properly set forth either. That is because there is no complete "apostolic" rule of faith. That is why we have (on secondary issues) various denominations. It is why we have confessions. Men confess what the Bible says and they gather together based on that. Confessions are about unity.

As, I've said many a time on this board, the Church has the default position on the interpretation of a Scripture. Anyone may challenge the Church, and the Church may be wrong, but the challenger has the burden of proof. That is a critical thing. Otherwise we are at the mercy of nutcases and heretics.

 

[pastorway]

But Fred, if proper exegesis of relevant Scriptural passages does not convince the JW then why should we think that referring to history and tradition will? He will just respond, "My tradition and history deny your tradition and history." And we are still nowhere.

We must understand that we are not responsible for convincing anyone, the Holy Spirit does the convincing through the Word of God rightly preached and explained.

It does not matter that 2000 years of church history have see a doctrine as heretical if the average every day Christian cannot read the Bible and understand what it says.

It is like what Jesus said about the man suffering torments in hell. Your brothers will not listen to one raised from the dead if they will not hear the Law and the Prophets (The Written Word of God).

Again, where does the authority come from? Does it come from the common confessions of the church? No. The confession itself states that the authority comes from the Word itself.

[quote:c01f14d4df]The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
[/quote:c01f14d4df]

So it is not me and my historical/traditional interpretation against the JW and his. It is me and the Holy Spirit rightly dividing the Word of Truth. History does not tip the scale when men are convinced of error. Illumination of the Spirit tips the scale. And He works through the Word rightly divided.

The whole premise presented in this thread is that Sola Scriptura must include elements outside the Scripture, and no matter which "Tradition" readers of the poll choose, no one can argue that Sola Scripture includes anything extra or outside of the Bible.

Phillip

 

[fredtgreco]

Phillip,

You miss hear me. I do not say that tradition (I prefer to speak of proper interpretation) should be used to convince the JW. What I propose though is that the Church at all times treats the authority of Church as real. It is not absolute (per Rome) but is not non-existent either (per modern evangelicaldom) . See again my posts to Gregory on the Scripture thread. If we deny that the Church has any authority, we deny the historical work of the Holy Spirit. How can we say that the Spirit works in the believer now, and denigrate the way that He worked in the Church in the past?

So for purposes of the Church, we need not doubt our Bibles because there are different interpretations. We give weight to some and none to others, until they have proven themselves worthy. We all do this everyday. "0" as set forth here would paralyze the Church and prove Rome's point - sola Scriptura is a cacophany of meaningless voices. But again "1" appears to set forth a single interpretation, which is belied by the facts. That is why Confessions are ultimately indispensible. They are the only real way to defend the Bible - again, see Athanasius. Would you be with the Arians chastising Athanasius for not "sticking to Scripture" ? Or do you acknowledge that it was necessary to use extra-Biblical formulations (homoousios) to cull out the heretics? If you agree, then you cannot espouse "0" as set forth here.

 

[pastorway]

I understand the role and authority of the Church. It is the Word that gives it both.

I am not saying there is no place for the church. I am saying that if we require what the church teaches in addition to the Bible for our "rule of faith" then we cannot claim Sola Scriptura.

[quote:edcf88e781]Tradition 0 - Only the Scriptures and no traditions. This view basically claims that the Scriptures are the sole authority, but that each person must determine for themselves the interpretation of them. This view allows for no extrabiblical revelation. [/quote:edcf88e781]

Sola Scriptura is the Bible alone. So this view is Sola Scriptura. The reformers taught that the Word binds the church, not the other way around. A person, not in any church, reading the Bible, can be brought to faith and understand the Word through the work of the Spirit.

[quote:edcf88e781]Tradition 1 - Only the Scriptures plus the Apostolic rule of faith. This view claims that the Scriptures are the sole authority, and that the establishment of the rule of faith of the early church, and subsequent generations that followed them, helps to determine the interpretation of the Scriptures. This view allows for no extrabiblical revelation. [/quote:edcf88e781]

So what is the "rule of faith?" If it is necessary to help us rightly understand the Word then we better know what the rule of faith is. But can we say the rule of faith is any man made document? Even the framers of the WCF had serious disagreements and even excluded some points becuase a consesus could not be reached. So are we to think that what they left out we must decide for ourselves?

You see, as soon as you make the "rule of faith" anything other than the Scripture itself (alone) you add to the Word of God the thoughts of men and make a specific interpretation the only infallible rule for faith and practice. Who decides which interpretation? What about the areas where we disagree (even strict subscriptionists disagree on things or this board would be dull!)? Who is the authority? Who casts the deciding vote?

Each Christian must read and seek to understand the Word so that they can be sure they are being taught the truth. They should not assume because of tradition, history, or authority that what they hear from the pulpit is true. They should verify it for themselves.

To automatically accept everything a pastor says is dangerous! To automoatically think that a denomonation is always correct in its interpretation of Scipture is also dangerous. If any of us or our forefathers actually believed that we would all still be Catholics!!!!

The Scripture alone stands against history, any and all churches, and all the traditions of men as our sole infallible rule of faith.

Phillip

 

[luvroftheWord]

[quote:a85fe35ef6][i:a85fe35ef6]Originally posted by Don A.[/i:a85fe35ef6]
The question posed is "Which is the historical Sola Scriptura?".

Well, historically it has most often been defined as Tradition 1.
[/quote:a85fe35ef6]

Exactly, which means that this IS the true definition of [i:a85fe35ef6][Sola Scriptura[/i:a85fe35ef6], since it is the Reformers, not 21st century evangelicals, who coined the term. Evangelicals today have an idea about what [i:a85fe35ef6]Sola Scriptura[/i:a85fe35ef6] should be, they redefine it, criticize those who originally defined it, then call their view (Tradition 0) THE Reformation principle of [i:a85fe35ef6]Sola Scriptura[/i:a85fe35ef6]. And any affirmation of [i:a85fe35ef6]Sola Scriptura's[/i:a85fe35ef6] original meaning (Tradition 1) is denying Scripture as our final authority.

Now THAT'S what it means to be Reformed!!!

[quote:a85fe35ef6]
But by true definition, it would be, and should be, Tradition 0.
[/quote:a85fe35ef6]

I'll stick with the Reformers on this one, rather than embrace hopeless subjectivism.

By the way, [i:a85fe35ef6]Sola Scriptura[/i:a85fe35ef6] is a creed.

 

[kceaster]

Phillip...

[quote:38d5c9e6ea][i:38d5c9e6ea]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:38d5c9e6ea]
Yes, KC, I read what was on the web. And I don't think I am missing what anyone has said.

Here is the clincher for Tradition 1:

What is the[i:38d5c9e6ea] rule of faith[/i:38d5c9e6ea]?

Is it the confession? A creed? A man made document? It is [i:38d5c9e6ea]your tradition[/i:38d5c9e6ea]?[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

Simply put, Phillip, the rule of faith is the doctrine of the Trinity. The rule of faith is the hypostatic union of Christ. These are but two examples of how the church has battled heresy. They settled it once and for all, using what? The Scriptures, rightly interpreted. This is the light shining in our window. If we see anything other than the trinity or the fact that Christ was one person with two distinct natures, then we see a different light. If we start to teach and preach this, and even write about it, now we have put forth "new" light.

But this ground has already been crossed. This is Tradition 1. We don't need to discover again the doctrine of the Trinity. It is already shining forth.

However, the Trinity, although derived from the Scriptures, is not found chapter and verse but must be inferred. This is where the rule of faith comes in.

BTW, tradition 1 does not place tradition above Scripture. You are muddying 1 and 2. The tradition in 1 is built on top, with the foundation under it. If it is contrary to the Scriptures, it falls.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]It matters not whether tradition is from the RCC, the PCA, the OPC, the Westminster Divines, the SBC, ARBCA, FIRE, or any other group of men. If it is tradition, it is secondary to Scripture.[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

You get no qualms from me. I never said tradition is above Scripture in tradition 1.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]I think perhaps it is you who are missing the point. You are saying that we must have the church to have the Word. I am saying that the Word stands alone. Alone. Sola.[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

Nope. I've been crystal clear with that one. The Scripture stands by itself, yet we do not know how to apply it without proper interpretation. This is the rule of faith. This is what A. A. Hodge was speaking about universal experience.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]I am not arguing against confessions or creeds. I am not advocating blantant Scripture twisting in the name of private interpretation. I am saying that we are all responsible to interpret for ourselves the Word to see if those leading us in the church are rightly teaching it![/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

No one is taking this away in Tradition 1.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]That is the whole point behind the reference in Acts to the Bereans. The questioned an APOSTLE by going to the Word. Are we then out of line to question the confession by going to the Word? Surely you are not saying that the WCF (history and tradition) trumps the teaching of an Apostle, are you?[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

Nope. And you know I never would.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]Your view of Sola Scripture requires something outside of the Scripture to validate the message.[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

Who said anything about validation. We do not validate the Word. It is validated by God. But if it is not universally applied, do we understand what it means? That is where the rule of faith comes in.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]That is not the position of either of the Hodges or anyone else I quoted. Read what they wrote about perspicuity. They stress PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL INTERPRETATION as the protestant understading of how to use the Bible alone as our rule for faith![/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

The interpretation is never alone, but is in concert with true believers of all times. How do you define UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE?

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]You add [i:38d5c9e6ea]reformed church tradition[/i:38d5c9e6ea] to the formula and in so doing replace Sola Scripture with Scripture PLUS church dogma.[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

Nope. Again, you are thrusting the RCC on top of my argument. I am not arguing what they are.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]Which church? Which history? Which confession and creed? Who decides? You? Me? The Elders of each individual church? Do we vote on it? Or is it by decree?[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

UNIVERSAL EXPERIENCE.

[quote:38d5c9e6ea]As has been stated, and as it will continue to be stressed, sola means ALONE. As soon as you add ANYTHING, you violate the principle.[/quote:38d5c9e6ea]

This is simply untrue. You're not applying the language correctly. Your definition is SOLO Scriptura because you believe that the individual is the ultimate authority by which all Scripture is to be interpreted.

I have shown you that neither of the Hodges believe that. Charles says deference must be given to the church and A. A. says that there must be universal experience.

But, by all means, don't read Mathison and don't look at this rationally. Believe what you want to about Sola Scriptura. But in so doing, you show yourself as your own ultimate authority on Scriptural matters. I don't know why you can't see that this is the logical end of your argument.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Don A]

[quote:dd16e415c4]
I'll stick with the Reformers on this one, rather than embrace hopeless subjectivism.
[/quote:dd16e415c4]

Fair enough. I'll stick with the apostles...

And Websters:

[u:dd16e415c4]Alone:[/u:dd16e415c4]

1 : separated from others : ISOLATED
2 : exclusive of anyone or anything else : ONLY
3 a : considered without reference to any other
3 b : INCOMPARABLE, UNIQUE

 

[kceaster]

Don...

Just like Sola Fide... it is only, but it is never alone.

If we take Sola Scriptura like the no-Lordship guys take Sola Fide, we will render every person authoritative in their own interpretation and application.

Now how many truths do we have?

Sola Scriptura is only the Scriptures, they are the sole authority, but those Scriptures have many witnesses. It is never alone.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Scott]

Phillip: Isn't there some rule against posting long articles? I think Reg Barrow or someone was criticized and prohibited from doing this. Anyway, I did not make it through most of those posts.

From skimming, a couple of points:

[1] All agree (I think) that scripture is the sole ultimate and infallible standard. That does not mean that there are no secondary and fallible standards.

[2] The church is the Bride of Christ. Christ's bride hears and understands His voice. It is a mistake to dismiss the testimony of the mother of all believers (see, Gal. 4 and Rev. 12 on the motherhood of the church). God is our Father and the Church is our Mother. We should listen to and obey both parents. Calvin wrote well on the motherhood of the Church in Insitutes.

[3] You mention James White a couple of times. I am a Protestant and have listened to his debates. On the issue of sola scriptura he is unpersuasive (to me at least). He criticizes Rome for what he terms sola ecclesia - the church alone. However, his form of sola scriptura (while he would not admit this) is sola persona, or individual alone. Every man becomes a private one-horse pope in terms of earthly interpretive authority.

He advocates a radical individualism that is unknown to the scriptures. The scriputures are a book of the community, the Church.

Scott

 

[Scott]

Here is a question for advocates of Tradition 0.

How should a contemporary believer determine whether or not the Shepherd of Hermas is an inspired part of the canon of scripture?

This is relevant to the question at hand, because the scriptures do not contain a written list of what books of the Bible are inspired. In other words, believers tend to act and function on the basis of an unwritten practice. Virtually no believer disputes this unwritten practice and virtually no believer tries to reconstruct the canon from scratch.

Here is a copy the Shepherd of Hermas for those interested:
http://www.antioch.com.sg/th/twp/bookbyte/hermas/hermas.html

Scott

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Scott]

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Scott]

 

[Don A]

[quote:8ece199335]
Here is a question for advocates of Tradition 0.

How should a contemporary believer determine whether or not the Shepherd of Hermas is an inspired part of the canon of scripture?
[/quote:8ece199335]

Can we not trust that God the Father and God the Spirit have maintained His Word through time and history [i:8ece199335]exactly[/i:8ece199335] as He intended? Did He indeed [i:8ece199335]need[/i:8ece199335] the Sons of Adam to preserve the integrity of His Word?

It is by your reason (scipture [i:8ece199335]plus[/i:8ece199335] tradition) that the Roman Catholics carry the Apocrypha between the Testaments in their Bible.

 

[Scott]

Here is a second question for advocates of Tradition 0.

Does sola scriptura imply that children should not rely on parental instruction about religion and morality?

If not, then you do not have scripture "alone." A child would have scripture and parental instruction (which would include the parents' spin on scripture). If sola scriptura does not imply ignoring parental instruction, then why can the same not be true for the church?

A relevant passage from Proverbs 6:

20My son, keep your father's commands
and do not forsake your mother's teaching.
21 Bind them upon your heart forever;
fasten them around your neck.
22 When you walk, they will guide you;
when you sleep, they will watch over you;
when you awake, they will speak to you.
23 For these commands are a lamp,
this teaching is a light,
and the corrections of discipline
are the way to life . . .

Scott

 

[Scott]

"Can we not trust that God the Father and God the Spirit have maintained His Word through time and history exactly as He intended? Did He indeed need the Sons of Adam to preserve the integrity of His Word?

It is by your reason (scipture plus tradition) that the Roman Catholics carry the Apocrypha between the Testaments in their Bible."

Don:

That does not answer the question. How is a believer today to determine whether the Shepherd of Hermas is inspired?

Remember, God has preserved the Shepherd of Hermas and it is easily available. In fact, I gave you a link to it. So someone could argue that God preseved his word just as he wanted it.

I will answer your other questions later, after you answer mine. I don't want to confuse the direct issue.

Thanks
Scott

 

[Don A]

[quote:e76576f090]
That does not answer the question. How is a believer today to determine whether the Shepherd of Hermas is inspired?
[/quote:e76576f090]

From http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/hermas.htm

[quote:e76576f090]19 After saying these things the Shepherd, the individual who speaks with Hermas from the fifth vision onwards, tells him that if he is of the opinion that the commandments are difficult then they will indeed be arduous to keep and informs him of the following: "But now I say to you: if you do not keep them, but neglect them, you will not have salvation, nor will your children nor your family, since you have already decided for yourself that these commandments cannot be kept by man".20 Salvation in The Shepherd therefore appears to be one of works and the ability of an individual to keep various commandments rather than justification in Christ alone.

Another area of theological interest in the contents of The Shepherd concerns the Person of Jesus Christ. Parable 9 appears to identify "the Son of God" with the Holy Spirit before the incarnation, and seems to be stating that the Trinity came into being only after Christ's ascension into heaven.

In Hermas' dialogue with the Shepherd, among the many instructions that are given to him, the issue of post-baptismal sin is discussed. It is revealed to Hermas that anyone who sins after baptism is given the opportunity to repent only once.32 Any sin that is committed afterwards is viewed extremely dismally and the implication is given that such an individual will no longer be able to obtain forgiveness.33 Various interpretations have been applied to this doctrine of penance for post- baptismal sins. For example, it is possible to view Hermas as one who is compromising the area of Christian repentance, one who acts as a reformer and exhorts the Church to holy living, or even one who is of such intense eschatological anticipation that he believes there will be no possibility of further repentance.[/quote:e76576f090]

Seems to me that if it is contrary to the rest of the Word, it can not be inspired. Perhaps I am a bit simple minded, but I see no problem in determining that this is not inspired. Would God contradict himself?

Also consider the final chapter of the Bible:


[quote:e76576f090]
[b:e76576f090]Revelation 22:[/b:e76576f090]

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.[/quote:e76576f090]

When the Apostle ceased to write, the writing of the Word ceased.