Share on
Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #159
General Comments
Hey folks, I’ve got another YouTube video ready for you. This one is on the subject of Sola Scriptura – the Bible Alone. I hope you enjoy it. Here’s the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pW7l2CC_20
Also, I want to thank all of those who wrote in with suggestions for topics to use in the first 3 tracts I’m developing. I will think about and pray about all the suggestions and see what happens, but the two most popular topics people wanted to see were: 1) How Are We Saved; and 2) The Rapture. Also, a decent number wanted to see something on authority. So, we’ll see what happens. I hope to begin working on them at the beginning of the year.
Introduction
This week, since the video I’m releasing is on the topic of Sola Scriptura, I thought I would do the newsletter on the same topic. Someone sent me a Q&A on Sola Scriptura from the website: www.gotquestions.org.
The website describes its mission in this way: “We will do our best to prayerfully and thoroughly research your question and answer it in a biblically-based manner. It is not our purpose to make you agree with us, but rather to point you to what the Bible says concerning your question. You can be assured that your question will be answered by a trained and dedicated Christian who loves the Lord and desires to assist you in your walk with Him. Our writing staff includes pastors, youth pastors, missionaries, biblical counselors, Bible/Christian College students, Seminary students, and lay students of God’s Word.”
I love it when people say things like that: “It is not our purpose to make you agree with us, but rather to point you to what the Bible says concerning your question.” Malarkey! What they’re really saying is: “If you don’t agree with us that means you don’t agree with the Bible, because we have THE correct interpretation of the Bible.” So if you disagree with them that makes you a heretic or, even worse, a Catholic or some such thing. I wonder if any of their “writing staff” would claim to be infallible?
Anyway, I will post the entire answer first, and then go back and put my comments betwixt and between.
Challenge/Response/Strategy
Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”
The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.
The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”
Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.
On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?
The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).
Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.
My Response:
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church has never made its traditions "superior in authority to the Bible." Sacred Tradition is considered by Catholics to be on the same level with the Bible, not superior to it. Sacred Traditon and Sacred Scripture are both the Word of God. The Word of God in one form is not "superior" to the Word of God in another form.
"This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible." What they are actually saying is that they believe many Catholic practices are " in fact contradictory to [their private, fallible interpretations of] the Bible." What’s really ironic in this paragraph is that they cite Martin Luther as the hero of the Deformation, yet one of the "unbiblical" traditions they specifically mention – infant baptism – was believed in and practiced by Martin Luther and the Lutherans. So, how do they reconcile the fact that Martin Luther, their hero, the man who first shouted and shouted most loudly "Sola Scriptura," the "rallying cry of the Reformation," believed in a tradition (infant baptism) that these folks say is outside of scripture?
Another irony is that they call Martin Luther the "father" of the Protestant Reformation. What about the passage in Scripture that says, "Call no man your father?" (Matt 23:9).
Finally, Martin Luther’s words strike at the heart of the problem with Sola Scriptura. Luther is essentially declaring himself to be his own Pope, Pastor, and Theologian. Unless "I" am convinced; unless "I" am persuaded. In other words, Luther is saying that he answers to no authority other than himself when it comes to matters of faith. And, every believer in Sola Scriptura does basically the same thing. Everyone is Pope, Pastor, and Theologian for their own private denomination, answering to no authority in matters of faith and morals other than themselves and their private, fallible interpretation of the Bible.
One last irony here: Scripture is considered the Word of God because of the witness of the Catholic Church, but Martin Luther, and every other Sola Scriptura believer, reject the witness of the Catholic Church when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. So, they rely on the authority of the Church to know what the Bible is in the first place, but then they reject the authority of the Church once they open the Bible.
www.gotquestions.org:
The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.
My Response:
This is priceless. They agree with what they call the "primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura" – that nowhere does the Bible teach sola scriptura – but then go on to argue, but not from Scripture, that Sola Scriptura is true nonetheless. And how do they begin their non-scriptural defense of Sola Scriptura? With the words, "We know the Bible is the Word of God." This fits perfectly with the YouTube video I just posted. How do they know the Bible is the Word of God? Who told them? "The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative." They rely on the Bible to tell them that the Bible is "God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative?" That is circular reasoning. "We believe the Bible to be inerrant because the inerrant Bible tells us so." So, if I now declare this newsletter to be "God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative," does that make it so? It must, because the newsletter says it is and the newsletter is "God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative."
Furthermore, where does the Bible say that every book in the Bible is "God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative?" It doesn’t. And, again, even if it did, so what? Someone had to be a witness, a reliable, authoritative witness to testify to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, or we could not know that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. Hmmm…who could that witness have been, I wonder?
Did you notice in about the middle of the paragraph how they switched the argument a bit, thus allowing them to avoid a direct answer to the "primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura?" They had to do that because they were honest enough to agree that nowhere does Scripture directly teach Sola Scriptura. So, they move the argument away from Scripture and now make it an argument about tradition: "Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines." Pretty sneaky of them, eh?
But, what they are saying here is rather bizarre. They agree that Sola Scriptura is not directly taught in the Bible, but it is rather, an "argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines." Translation: An extra-biblical doctrine, Sola Scriptura, is an argument against extra-biblical doctrines. Can’t quite get my mind around that argument. Maybe that’s one of those mysteries…you know…like the Trinity.
"The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible." Again, that begs the question. How do you know God has revealed the Bible? Who told you that?
"We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable." How, by reading Scripture and Scripture telling us it is? The same cannot be said of tradition." Why can the same not be said of tradition? This argument makes no sense. Actually, it’s not even an argument, just a statement. Scripture is nothing but tradition. Tradition that was written down, but tradition nonetheless. Tradition that was passed on generation to generation. So, if the early Christians can faithfully pass on the tradition that we call Scripture from one generation to the next, why can’t they faithfully pass on other traditions from one generation to the next? And, what about the traditions of the Old Testament? The first several chapters of Genesis were passed on as "tradition" for hundreds and even thousands of years before they were ever written down. I guess we can’t really rely on them, can we? After all, there is no way anyone could faithfully pass on oral traditions over thousands of years, is there?
www.gotquestions.org:
The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”
My Response:
"The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith." The Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Christian faith, but not the only authority. For Catholics, we also have the Church as an authority. An authority to help guide us in our understanding of God’s Word. For Sola Scriptura Christians, they also have another authority – their own authority that is private to each one of them individually. The authority they use to "infallibly" interpret the Scriptures.
"Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture." I agree 100% with what they are saying on the surface of it, but I do not agree with what they are actually saying in-between the lines: "Traditions are valid only when they are based on [our private, fallible interpretations of] Scripture and are in full agreement with [our private, fallible interpretations of] Scripture." This is what is so difficult to get Sola Scriptura Christians to recognize, that everytime they say something must "agree with Scripture," what they are really saying is it must agree with their private, fallible interpretations of Scripture. It must be based on Scripture as they interpret it, as they see it. If you don’t agree with their private, fallible interpretations, then you are wrong, period.
So many times I’ve had people tell me that they don’t want me to accept their word for something, that they just want me to read Scripture and see for myself. But, when I read Scripture and tell them what I saw for myself in Scripture, they then proceed to tell me I’m wrong. So, it’s not Scripture itself they want me to agree with, it’s their private, fallible interpretation of Scripture that they want me to agree with.
"Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible." So, let me get this straight. The only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinions out of all of this, is for each and every person to read the Bible for themselves to arrive at their own conclusions of what it actually says, based solely on their own authority? Hey makes sense to me. Instead of having one opinion – that of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself founded – we need to have an opinion from everyone who picks up the Bible and reads it. And that will keep personal opinion and subjectivity out of all of this? Folks, you are witnessing the death of logic.
www.gotquestions.org:
Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.
My Response:
First, if I could talk to whoever wrote this, I would ask them to name me one tradition of the Catholic Church that is "based on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions?" What happened to their statement of "prayerfully and thoroughly" researching the answers they would give? I’m willing to bet that this person has no clue as to what the Church actually teaches and why it teaches it.
Again, though, they are faced with the same problem: Who is it that decides which traditions are biblically-based and which are not? For example, the tradition of altar calls? Is that a tradition that is biblically-based? Nowhere in the Bible does it mention such a thing as an altar call, but I’ll bet the person who answered this question would find a way to say that altar calls are indeed in accord with Scripture. But, what about the Assumption of Mary? Is that a tradition that is biblically-based? Nowhere in the Bible does it mention Mary being assumed into Heaven. But, there are instances of others in the Bible being assumed body and soul into Heaven, so Mary being assumed into Heaven would not run counter to any scriptural principle. But, how much do you want to bet that the person who wrote this answer would say the Assumption is an unbiblical tradition? What’s the difference between the two? Neither is mentioned directly in the Bible. And, in fact, there is indirect evidence in the Bible for Mary’s Assumption, whereas there is no indirect evidence for altar calls in the Bible. So why are altar calls an "okay" tradition, but Mary’s Assumption is not? Subjectivity and personal opinion couldn’t have anything to do with it, could it?
www.gotquestions.org:
On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?
My Response:
Notice, they do not disagree with the arguments themselves, but watch the sleight of hand that takes place in the answer to how sola scriptura handles these issues.
www.gotquestions.org:
The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).
My Response:
Did you see what they did?! They twisted the very valid "practical" arguments against Sola Scriptura and made them into a straw man argument about Scripture’s authority being based on its availability. Thus, they don’t have to address the points in the arguments as they were actually made. The arguments about the availability of Scripture have nothing at all to do with the authority of Scripture, rather they are about the workability and the logic of a doctrine that depends on reading the Bible for yourself in order to know what is true or not true, when most people either did not have a Bible and/or could not read, for hundreds of years after the Bible was written?
And, how can you have sola scriptura when you don’t have a set scriptura for a few hundred years after Jesus, or when you don’t even have a single book of the New Testament for at least 10 years or more after the death of Christ and a complete New Testament for at least 40 years after the death of Christ and possibly as many as 65 years after the death of Christ? How does sola scriptura work without a scriptura? Was sola scriptura a doctrine believed in by the first Christians? If so, then they were believing in sola Old Testament scriptura, because that was all the scriptura they had at the time.
And can you believe how they try to turn the arguments around by saying that they are actually arguments for "what the church should have done?!" "While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it." Uhmm…they did. What do these folks think was being read at every Mass in the early Christian communities?
"Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it." Uhmm…they did. Has he not read any of the writings of the Early Church Fathers? The writings are all about Scripture. They are overflowing with Scripture. One of the main reasons universities were started by…ahem…the Catholic Church, was to promote the deeper study, and better understanding, of Scripture. To train men to go out and teach others about God.
"Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures." It’s kind of funny, but by trying to slam the church, what they are really doing here is admitting that the Catholic Church was indeed the early Church, the Church that gave us the Scriptures in the first place. Also, when they say the church "should have copied the Scriptures," they seem to think that it is some sort of easy and inexpensive task to copy a Bible by hand. The question also comes to mind, as to why they believe the Church should be churning out copies of the Bible when it has already been admitted that most people could not read? Finally, was it Baptist monks, or Methodist monks, or Evangelical monks who were sitting in their scriptorums day after day, month after month, year after year making copies of the Bible by hand? Don’t think so.
www.gotquestions.org:
Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.
Again, and always, the problem of…whose interpretation of Scripture is the standard by which we determine what is and is not in accord with Scripture? Sola Scriptura does not ultimately point us back to the God who always speaks the truth, if that were true then there would not be thousands of different denominations, all operating on the principle of Sola Scriptura, yet with thousands of different and contradictory teachings. No, Sola Scriptura ultimately points us back to us. It tells each of us that we can be the Pope for our own little denomination. It tells us that we have no authority outside of ourselves to which we have to answer in determining what is true and what is false doctrine. Sola Scriptura is a disaster.
In Conclusion
For those of you here in the U.S., I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday with friends and family! And I hope everyone has a happy and holy Advent Season. Prepare ye the way!
How to be added to, or removed from, the list
If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.
$RemovalHTML$
Share this newsletter on:
