Apologetics for the Masses #233 - Blue Collar Apologetics (cont'd)

How to Be Added To or Removed From This Newsletter

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 http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. If you would like to be removed from this newsletter list, click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe and then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,

If you were planning on coming out to the Mobile Men's Conference tomorrow, April 12th, it's been cancelled, so don't come. Which means my next speaking engagement will be on Saturday, May 2nd, in Napa, CA at the Napa Valley Catholic Men's Conference. If you're in the Napa/Sacramento/Oakland/San Fran area, come on out. I'd love to meet you and say hello. For more information on the conference, check out: https://www.nccmc.net/

Introduction

Continuing with Chapter 3 of Blue Collar Apologetics. Actually, I should probably say that I am re-starting chapter 3. I've re-written the intro and, in the last newsletter, I had a section on Solo Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura at the beginning of the chapter. Well, after reading it back over, and thinking on it for a bit, I decided it would make more sense to relocate that section elsewhere within the chapter. Instead of it being at the beginning of the chapter, I'm going to move it inside the section on "The Perspective Provided By Logic." And, I'll probably touch on that subject a little bit more at the end of the chapter as well. So, if some of what you read here seems familiar, it's because it is.

Chapter 3 - Blue Collar Apologetics (cont'd)

Chapter 3 - The Bible and Authority - Sola Scriptura (The Bible...Alone?)

The First Pillar of Protestantism
There are two basic doctrines that separate Catholic Christians from most Protestant Christians. Those two being: Sola Scriptura – which means Scripture Alone, or the Bible Alone; and Sola Fide – which means salvation by Faith Alone. There are other doctrines that separate us as well, but these are the two most fundamental ones. These two are, essentially, the pillars of Protestantism. While I have come across Protestants who do not believe in the doctrine of Sola Fide, I have yet to come across any who do not believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. That’s not to say there aren’t any, I’m just saying that I haven’t run into any. So, near as I can tell, this doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the one doctrine that all, or almost all, Protestants believe in. That’s why I refer to Sola Scriptura as the first pillar of Protestantism.

Let me define the term "Sola Scriptura", as I understand it, so that you know exactly what I mean when I use the term. It is simply this: The Bible is the sole authority that one needs when it comes to deciding what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. That is not to say that one cannot learn things from sources other than the Bible, but these other sources are not infallible, as is the Bible, and do not carry the binding authority that the Bible does.

In other words, the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the Christian. If it’s not in the Bible, then I, as a Christian, am not bound to believe it. This definition of Sola Scriptura is not something of my own making, but is based on what I have been told by the many Protestants I have discussed this particular doctrine with.

There are those in Protestantism, however, who object to the definition of Sola Scriptura as I have just given it, although they admit that many Protestants do indeed define it in the same way I just did, which is, again, why I define it that way - because I got my definition from Protestants. In fact, of the couple thousand or so Protestants I have talked with in the last 15 years, I can count on one hand those who do not define it as I have defined it here. Those who disagree with this definition will make a distinction between what they call Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura. I just wanted to note this here, so that if you are a Protestant and believe I have improperly defined Sola Scriptura, you’ll know that I will defend my use of this definition, and answer your objections, as we go through this chapter, and I will show why this distinction between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura is really a distinction without a difference.

Anyway, using the definition of Sola Scriptura I gave above as a basis for this chapter, I wish to examine this doctrine from several different angles, ask some questions about it, and contrast it with Catholic teaching. And speaking of Catholic teaching, I want to say at the outset that Catholics hold the Bible in the highest possible regard. We believe it is the Holy Spirit-inspired, inerrant Word of God. The Scriptures are central to Catholic Christian belief and practice.

We do not, however, believe in Sola Scriptura. We do not believe that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith for the Christian. We believe, rather, in Solo Dei Verbum – the Word of God alone. The difference being that, for Catholics, the Word of God consists of not just Sacred Scripture, but in Sacred Tradition as well. Which is exactly what the Bible tells us, as you’ll see in just a bit.

So, I will examine this doctrine of Sola Scriptura from three different perspectives – the perspective provided by logic, the perspective provided by history, and the perspective provided by scripture – and show that it fails the test in all three of these areas. Now, what you may occasionally run into, as I have in the past, is that there are those who immediately dismiss the first two perspectives - the perspectives of logic and history - since they believe Scripture alone is sufficient to decide the issue. They don’t need logic to tell them what to believe, nor do they need history, they have their Bible and that Bible alone is sufficient for them. In that instance, I simply remind them that God gave us our minds and He told us that we must love Him with all of our mind, as well as our heart (Matt 22:37). In addition, we see from 1 Cor 12, that wisdom and knowledge are gifts of the Spirit, and in Isaiah 1:18, the Lord says, "Come, let us reason together." Logic, sound logic, is indeed of God.

Also, God is the Lord of history. What happened in history, particularly in Christian history, in salvation history, is very important for us to know. The early Christians are important witnesses as to what Christianity was in their time, and thus to what it ought to be in our time. So to simply dismiss logic and history out-of-hand as not being important perspectives to consider when it comes to Christian teaching and practice, is to dismiss the God Who gave us our minds and told us to use them in loving Him, and to also dismiss the testimony of the early Christians, many of whom gave their lives to defend and pass on the Faith that we hold so dear.

I will start with the perspectives provided by logic and history, then close with the perspective provided by Scripture.

Sola Scriptura - The Perspective Provided By Logic
I want to start by asking a question: Where did the Bible come from? Catholics and non-Catholics alike, consider the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. But the question that needs to be asked is: Why? Why do we believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, Word of God? What authority do Christians rely upon for our beliefs about the Bible?

What Authority Do They Rely On?
Where did the Bible come from? Most people never stop to consider this question. They merely take it for granted that the Bible is what they believe it to be. But, the fact is, everyone who believes the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, Word of God, relies on some authority - whether they realize it or not - for their beliefs about the Bible. But, what authority do they rely on?

Well, as Catholics, we rely on the authority of the Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ...the Church that is the Body of Christ...the Church that was given authority by Jesus Christ Himself, through His Apostles...the Church that is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. We believe the Catholic Church, with its Apostolic authority, and based on Sacred Tradition, infallibly decided which books were and were not the inspired, inerrant, Word of God.

Non-Catholic Christians, however, do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church. Non-Catholic Christians also do not believe in the authority of Sacred Tradition. So, what authority do they rely upon to tell them that the Bible is indeed the inspired, inerrant, Word of God? The Bible, right? I mean, if the Bible is your ultimate authority - your only infallible authority - when it comes to all matters Christian, then it makes sense that you would rely upon the authority of the Bible for your belief that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God.

But there are some problems with that approach, one of which presents a serious logical inconsistency. We cannot believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God, based solely on the authority of the Bible. Why not? Well, three reasons:

1) The Bible cannot bear witness to itself. There are a number of writings out there that claim inspiration from God, but we don’t accept them as the inspired Word of God just because they claim to be. The Koran being one very obvious example of this. If we should believe something is what it says it is, simply because it says it, then we should accept the Koran as the word of God. But, we don’t, do we? Furthermore, what if I claimed this book to be the inspired, inerrant, Word of God? Would my claiming it make it so? No, it wouldn’t.

Just so, we cannot accept the Bible as the Word of God based solely upon the witness of the Bible. I mean, if you believe the Bible, then you should believe that the Bible, the Word of God, cannot bear witness to itself. After all, Jesus, Who is the Word of God, said in John 5:31, “If I bear witness to Myself, My testimony is not true.” The Bible, the Word of God, needs a witness. At least, so says the Bible.

2) The Bible never claims that it is the sole, infallible, authoritative source for all matters pertaining to Christian belief and practice. That claim is nowhere to be found in the Bible, even though a lot of people believe it is. I’ll come back to this point in a few minutes when I discuss the perspective provided by Scripture.

3) We can’t even be sure of what the Bible is, if we rely on the authority of Scripture alone in matters of Christian belief and practice. You see, God didn’t just drop the Bible down out of the sky one day and say, “Hey, guys, here it is.” No. It just so happens that for more than 300 years after the death of Christ, there was disagreement among Christians over what should and should not be considered inspired Scripture. There were a number of books that some Christians thought were inspired, that didn’t make the final cut. Books such as the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, the Letter of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, and several more.

There were also several books that did make the final cut that a lot of Christians were saying were not inspired and should not be considered as part of Scripture. Books such as Revelation, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and a couple of others. In other words, there was a lot of dispute over just what was, and what wasn’t, inspired Scripture. So, how did they settle the disputes? Well, according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you just look in the Bible to find the authoritative answer to any question regarding the Christian faith. So, did they consult the Bible to find out what books should be in the Bible? Obviously not, because Scripture was what the disputes were over. So, how does someone who believes in Sola Scriptura go about deciding a dispute when they can’t consult the Bible for an answer, since the Bible is what the dispute is over? Well, they have to look outside the Bible to solve the dispute. Because even if you consulted the non-disputed books of the Bible, that still wouldn’t help you because there is no list...there is no list...in any book of the Bible, that tells us which books should be in the Bible.

Think about that! In order to answer one of the most fundamental questions of Christianity - which books should and should not be considered inspired Scripture...which books should and should not be inside the Bible - we have to rely on some authority outside of the Bible to tell us. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logically inconsistent.

The fact of the matter is, if you believe in Sola Scriptura, that the Bible is the sole authority in deciding Christian belief and practice; yet, you believe in a binding authority outside of the Bible which gave us the Bible in the first place, then you believe in a logical contradiction. The Bible can’t be the sole authority in matters of faith and morals if there is some authority outside of the Bible that we have to turn to in order to have the Bible in the first place!

In other words, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, fails the test of logic.

Solo Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura
There are, however, Sola Scriptura believers who think they have a way around this logical inconsistency that I have just pointed out. They will say that, even though they do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church, nor in the authority of Sacred Tradition, they do in fact believe in the existence of authority and tradition outside of the Bible. The distinction they make is that they believe it is the Bible, and the Bible alone, that is the ultimate authority and the only infallible authority.

This is where the distinction I mentioned earlier between Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura comes into play. The Protestants who try to get around this logical inconsistency regarding the Bible, admit to there being authority and tradition outside of the Bible, but that the Bible is the sole infallible authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals. They say this is what is really meant by the term Sola Scriptura. They refer to the belief that the Bible, and the Bible alone, as being the only authority in matters of Christian belief - the definition that I gave earlier - as Solo Scriptura.

So, they will admit that there is some authority, or some tradition, outside of the Bible that decided which books were and were not the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. This, they believe, gets them around any logical inconsistency. The crucial point to them is, though, that this “other” authority was not infallible. In other words, they believe in a fallible authority that gave us an infallible book. Huh?

There is a prominent Protestant theologian, I believe he’s Presbyterian, named R.C. Sproull, who coined a phrase that sums up what these folks believe. He basically says the best...the best...that Protestantism can claim in regard to the canon of Scripture - the list of the books that are in the Bible - is that it is a, “fallible list of infallible books.” A fallible list of infallible books? Really?!

Right on the surface of it, that is a problematic statement. If the canon of the Bible is indeed just a fallible list of infallible books, as Dr. R.C. Sproull claims, and as every Protestant has to essentially admit, if they believe in no infallible authority other than the Bible, then that is tantamount to an admission that whoever put the Bible together could have possibly made a mistake, at least, according to Sola Scriptura theology. The word, “fallible,” after all, means that there is a possibility of error. It is an admission of the possibility that whoever it was that put the Bible together, may have left out a book or two that was supposed to have been in there.

And, if the folks who put the Bible together could have left out a book or two, what guarantee is there that they didn’t include a book or two that they shouldn’t have? Isn’t it a least possible that they included a book or two that maybe they shouldn’t have? Every Protestant, if he is honest, has to at least admit the possibility. A fallible authority, after all, is one that can make mistakes.

This man, Dr. R.C. Sproull, is essentially admitting that the Bible might be flawed. By saying that the Bible is the only infallible authority out there, all of Protestantism is admitting that the folks who put the Bible together, since they were fallible, could have made a mistake. All of Protestantism is saying, in essence, that the Bible could be flawed. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, to put it in Dr. R.C. Sproul’s terms, believes that the canon of Scripture is an infallible list of infallible books, because we believe that the folks who put the Bible together, the Catholic Church, teaches infallibly in matters of faith and morals with the authority given to it by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.

So, who has a higher view of Scripture? Those that believe it is a fallible list of infallible books, or those who believe it is an infallible list of infallible books? Sola Scriptura believers are faced with the problem of either having a logical inconsistency in their belief, or of having to admit that their Bibles could be flawed.

But, beyond that problem, let’s look at yet another difficulty. These Sola Scriptura folks who say they actually do believe in some authority and tradition outside of Scripture - who exactly is it they believe put the Bible together as we have it today? Who is the witness, who is the authority, they believe and trust in regard to the Bible being the inspired, inerrant, Word of God? “Well,” they might say, “we rely on the witness of the early Christians.” Oh, really? What early Christians? Can you name some names?! They can’t do it. Why not? Because the only names they could name would be the names of Catholics.

Or, they might say they accept the testimony of “the church” on this matter. Great! What church? Name it! The Baptist church? No. The Anglican church? No? The Lutheran church? No. The Evangelical church? No. What church?! They can’t give you a name. Why? Because the only church in existence at the time was the Catholic Church! The only people discussing such things at the time were Catholics. The only councils of the Church that were being called to discuss such things were being called by the Catholic Church and were being attended by Catholic Bishops.

They’ll protest by saying, “No, it wasn’t the Catholic Church, it was the witness of the early Christians we rely on for knowing which books are inspired Scripture.” Again, ask them for some names. Which Christians? How do you know about these Christians? And what authority did these Christians have to decide such matters? They can’t answer you. Ask them why it is they believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God, when they are relying on the supposed witness of folks that they can’t even tell you who they were? How can you trust folks whose names you don’t even know, and who have no authority that you know of, to give you a book that you believe to be the infallible Word of God? Does that make any sense, whatsoever?!

Can you imagine seeing a defense lawyer in a courtroom telling the judge, “Your honor, my client is innocent.” And the judge says, “On what grounds do you make this claim?” And the lawyer says, we have a number of witnesses who will testify to this.” The judge says, “Who are these witnesses?” And the lawyer responds, “I don’t know.” So the judge says, “Well, who told you that there were witnesses?” The lawyer again replies, “I don’t know.” The judge would throw him out of the courtroom.

Well, that’s the position of Sola Scriptura believers who will not admit that the Catholic Church is the witness they rely on for their Bible. What witnesses are you relying on? We don’t know. How do you know these witnesses even exist? We don’t know. But, we know they gave us the Bible and we believe them that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. Sorry, but that makes no sense, whatsoever.

Ultimately, this supposed distinction between Solo and Sola Scriptura does not solve anything for the Protestant. It is a distinction without a difference. You still can’t get around the problem of the logical inconsistency. All you’ve done is kick the can down the road a bit. You at least admit to relying on some authority outside of the Bible in order to have the Bible in the first place, but you can’t tell me who that authority was, what kind of authority that person or group of persons had, and, most importantly, you have to admit that since this authority is not infallible, it could have made a mistake in putting the Bible together. And, since this authority is not infallible, it is not binding on anyone. How can an unknown person, or group of persons, who have an unknown authority, of unknown origin and unknown nature, be the authority you rely upon for believing the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God?

One final argument here to drive home the point that making a distinction between Solo vs. Sola Scriptura does not solve their logical inconsistency problem is this: Okay, so you agree that there is authority and tradition outside of the Bible, even though neither one is infallible, so my question is: Who decides which authority and which tradition is valid and which is not? Which authority and which traditions should be obeyed and which should be rejected? Who decides? When I’ve asked that question, I’ve been told that only such extra-biblical authority or tradition that is in accord with the Bible should be obeyed and followed.

Oh, okay. We can know the Bible, as we have it today, is truly the inspired, inerrant, Word of God because there is some authority, or tradition, outside of the Bible that tells us this, and we can know that this extra-biblical authority, or tradition, is legitimate because it is in accord with the Bible. A finer case of circular reasoning I have yet to come across.

No, this whole business of Solo Scriptura vs. Sola Scriptura is merely a smoke screen. Ultimately, the only authority that the Protestant can point to as having any weight at all in matters of authentic Christian doctrine and practice, is the Bible. Even if they say they believe in some fallible authority, or tradition, outside of the Bible from which we received the Bible in the first place, it doesn’t ultimately solve the logical inconsistency that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura presents.

Again, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura fails the test of logic.

Now, let me give you a couple of questions you can ask folks to drive the stake into the heart of Sola Scriptura dogma: 1) Who wrote the Gospel of Mark; and 2) How do you know? Think about it - they believe the Gospel of Mark was written by someone named Mark, who was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The problem is, though, nowhere does the Bible say such a thing. When I ask them to give me book, chapter, and verse from the Bible that says someone named Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the Gospel of Mark, they can’t do it. Which means they are relying on an authority, outside of the Bible, for their beliefs about the Bible.

And, again, if they admit to some sort of extra-biblical authority or tradition by which we know these things, ask them exactly which extra-biblical authority or tradition it is they rely upon to know that Mark wrote Mark and that Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit in his writing. And ask them who exactly it is that determines which extra-biblical authority and which extra-biblical tradition to accept, and which to reject?

They can’t give you an answer. At least, not a logically consistent answer.

Summary

I hope everyone has a great week. I'm caught up on some things, so I'm hoping to have a newsletter out each of the next 2 or 3 weeks at least. But, just in case something unforeseen comes up this week, let me wish all of you a very happy, and holy, Easter.