The
issue of Scripture and Scripture Alone (or what Protestants have come
to call the principle of sola Scriptura) is a matter that
divides professing Christians as to the foundation of their faith and
what defines their faith. Back in the days of the Reformation when
there were men who felt that the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ had
been not only corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church, but had
virtually disappeared under the mask of human traditions and rituals
and things that kept people from actually hearing the good news of
Jesus Christ, in order to reform the Church, in order to have the
grace of God more clearly proclaimed to people, Protestants realized
they had to take a stand not only for ‘Sola Gratia’ (i.e., in
Latin, ‘By Grace Alone’ for our salvation), but that had to be
proclaimed on the basis ofsola Scriptura (‘Scripture
Alone’) because the Roman Catholic Church used its appeal to human
tradition in the Church (or what they considered divine tradition in
the Church) as a basis for its most distinctive doctrines.
When
Martin Luther was called before the ‘Diet of Worms’ and there
told that he had to recant his teaching about ‘Justification by
Faith Alone’ (you may know the story very well), Luther (which was
the better part of valor) asked for a night to think it over before
he gave his answer to the Council. And then on the next day in
appearing before that tribunal which was demanding that he recant of
this teaching which really amounted to the purity of the Gospel,
Luther responded with those famous words: “Here I stand, I can do
no other!” Now what do we make of that? Is that just the stuff of
which dramatic movies can be made? Or is there something about what
Luther said that is crucial to what it is to be a Christian, crucial
to the purity of the Gospel and the truth of the Scriptures
themselves?
The
response of Roman Catholics to Luther’s dramatic stand that he
would not recant unless he could be shown to be wrong from the
Bible...the response of Roman Catholics (for years) has been, “Well,
Protestants simply have their ‘paper’ pope (the Bible)!” Back
when I was a seminary student, I had a student in my class who was
very antagonistic to the conservatism and theology of the school
where I was studying. And he used to make that point over and over
again in debates with other students that “You Protestants simply
have your paper pope; we have our ‘living’ pope; you have your
‘paper’ pope!”
Of
course in saying that, it seemed to me that he was really
demonstrating why it is Protestants have to hold out for sola
Scriptura, because when he pits the ‘paper’ pope of the Bible
against the ‘living’ pope who sits in Rome, what he is telling us
is that finally that person who sits on the papal chair in Rome is
more authoritative than the Bible itself! And that’s exactly what
Luther was concerned about. That’s what the Protestant Reformers
were concerned about. And frankly, that’s what I’m concerned
about tonight! Because we have in our day and age something of a
mini-movement (it’s not big enough to be considered even a
trickle), but a mini-movement of former Protestants going into the
Roman Catholic communion. And they are being convinced that it’s an
appropriate thing for them to do, and they are being told that the
doctrine of sola Scriptura (the formative principle
of theology presented in the Reformation, namely that the Bible alone
is sufficient) is not itself authoritative, and in fact is not even
itself taught in the Bible! “If sola Scriptura is
so important,” they tell us, “then why isn’t it taught in the
Bible alone? Why do Presbyterians prove their doctrine of sola
Scriptura by going to the Westminster Confession of
Faith, rather than to the Bible?” And so with rhetoric like
this, they convince the minds (I think) of weak and unstable people
that really Roman Catholicism is not that big a threat. After all,
everybody has their traditions; we have to live with traditions as
well as Scripture!
Well,
there was a humorous P.S. (it seems to me) to all of this in that a
number of other people who had formerly been in the Reformed Churches
(not a whole lot of people, but some... some with reputations, and
therefore a great deal of media attention is given to them), they
have left the Protestant fold and have gone into the Eastern Orthodox
Church. And one of these people that I’ve had some contact with has
written a paper on sola Scriptura in which he lays
out all the reasons why sola Scriptura is not an
acceptable principle of theology, and it’s illogical and
unhistorical and on and on and on. And throughout the paper he uses
exactly the same rhetoric, exactly the same polemic as do Roman
Catholics against Protestants with respect to Sola Scriptura, and
throughout the paper promotes the idea of Scripture plus holy
tradition.
Well,
as I started reading his paper, I started laughing out loud, not in
disrespect of the person himself, but in what I saw as the irony of
the situation! Roman Catholics present these very same arguments to
argue in favor of Roman tradition, papal tradition! And then you turn
around and find out that Eastern Orthodox polemicists use exactly the
same arguments in favor of what they call their ‘Holy Tradition’
which is contrary to papal tradition. And so here you have two august
Christian bodies (professedly Christian bodies) claiming the
authority of tradition, and yet their authorities conflict with each
other; their traditions conflict with each other. And yet, they laugh
at Protestants for their ‘paper’ pope.
Well,
what I’d like to do in our short time this evening is offer a
defense of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. I’m
not embarrassed by that doctrine. I believe it is absolutely
necessary to the health of the Church, and I am convinced (as Luther
was convinced) that if we give up sola Scriptura, we will
inevitably give up sola Gratia as well. Because the
giving up of the Protestant authority (the principle ofsola
Scriptura) simply opens the door for other ways of pleasing God
to enter in that are not based upon His own revelation. And it’s a
very short step from thinking that I can follow a religious tradition
that cannot be verified objectively by the Word of God to the idea
that I can please God by something that He has not provided. It is a
very short step from the denial of sola Scriptura to
the denial of sola Gratia when it comes to
salvation.
So
I will try to keep you up to date on where I am in presenting this
case, and I am going to begin by asking: What does the Bible itself
tell us about the authority for our doctrinal convictions? When two
people who profess to be Christians disagree with each other over
some premise or dogma, how does the Bible tell us these disagreements
should be adjudicated?
I.
And the first step, which I hope is an obvious one but becomes
crucial as we move ahead, the first step is for us to recognize that
the Bible teaches that our convictions are not to be based upon human
wisdom! Human wisdom isn’t always wrong; sometimes people used
their intellect and their independent ability to research, and find
facts and come to truths which are very valuable. The problem is not
that human wisdom is always wrong. The problem is that human wisdom
is (1) fallible, and (2) not a sufficient foundation for believing
anything about God. Because only God is adequate to witness to
Himself!
Therefore
our doctrinal convictions are not (should not) based upon human
wisdom. The Christian faith is rather based upon God’s own
self-revelation rather than the conflicting opinions of men or the
untrustworthy speculations of men. If you have your Bibles with you
tonight, turn to I Corinthians 2:5, and notice the burden of the
Apostle Paul as to how to control the beliefs of the Christians there
in Corinth. I Corinthians 2:5, in verse 4 he says, “And my speech
and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in
demonstration of the Spirit and of power...” Why?... Why is Paul
making that point? Why is this necessary to emphasize? Verse 5:
“...that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in
the power of God.” (ASV)
Think
about Paul’s conceptual scheme here as you read this verse. Notice
how he puts the power of God over here on one side, and the wisdom of
men on the other. And not only is the power of God and the wisdom of
men in two different categories, he said, “Your faith should not
stand in the wisdom of men.” In I Corinthians 2, verses 10 and 13
(you’ll notice while you’re right there) that Paul draws a sharp
contrast between the words which man’s wisdom teaches and those
which God reveals unto us through the Spirit. On the one hand, you
have words taught by the wisdom of men, and on the other hand you
have words revealed through the Spirit. Those are contrasted in
Paul’s theology. And he makes the point in verse 4 of chapter 2
that the apostolic message did not originate in words of human wisdom
or insight; but rather the apostolic message rests in the power of
God and comes through the wisdom of God’s own Spirit!
Paul
thanked God in I Thessalonians 2:13... Paul thanked God that the
Thessalonians received his message (and now I’m using his words)
“Not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.”
All I’m trying to get across at this fundamental level in tonight’s
lecture is that Paul contrasts the words of God to the words of men,
the wisdom of God to the wisdom of men. These are set apart from each
other. He says, “I praise God that you received my preaching not as
the words of men!” (Of course, he is a man; he did use words...
They were human words.) But Paul says that you received it rather as
the Word of God Himself!
Yes,
God's revelation should be distinguished from human wisdom.
In
II Timothy 3, verses 15 to 17, Paul spoke of the ‘sacred writings’
which make us 'wise unto Salvation!' And he said that “every one of
them is God-breathed,” is inspired by God. The Bible would have us
beware of the uninspired words of men. God’s people must not submit
to the uninspired words of men. Jeremiah 23:16, the prophet says,
“Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the
prophets that prophesy unto you: they teach you vanity; they speak a
vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jehovah.”
(ASV) There again we see in the Old Testament this contrast between a
message that comes out of the heart of a man and that which comes
from the mouth of Jehovah!
It’s
not as though the heart of man can’t ever speak the truth; it’s
not as though human wisdom never gets anything right, but God’s
people cannot rest secure in anything that does not come from the
mouth of Jehovah Himself.
Yes,
we should never teach as doctrines of God the commandments of mere
men. The Word of God should never be conflated with the words of
mere men.
In
the New Testament, in Colossians 2 and verse 8, Paul warns God’s
people not to allow their faith to be compromised by any philosophy
which he says is “after the tradition of men... and not after
Christ!” There you have it again, the contrast between man’s
authority and Christ’s authority, the tradition of men on the one
hand, and the authority of Christ on the other. Not this but that,
your faith stands in the power of God, in the ‘breathed-out’ Word
of God, in a philosophy that is after Christ and not after human
tradition. Not after the wisdom of men; not after the tradition of
men! Indeed, in the 15th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, verse 6, our
Lord Jesus condemned those who, He says, “make void the Word of
God” because of their “tradition.” (ASV)
Yes,
there are traditions of men that aren't from God, and we should not
confuse these with the Word of God. Even more so should we not
negate God's Word on the basis of mere human tradition.
One
other thing about human wisdom. We read in the Bible that God forbids
us to subtract anything from His Word, and as well forbids us to add
anything to His Word. Look at Deuteronomy 4, verse 2: “Ye shall not
add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from
it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I
command you.” (ASV) It’s a very serious thing to violate this
principle. It’s a very serious thing for any human (in his or her
wisdom) to subtract from the Word of God, or (in his or her wisdom)
to add anything to the Word of God.
Indeed!
I’ll
tell you how serious it is. In Revelation 22, verses 18 and 19, John
says of this Revelation that he is giving that if any man dares to
add to it, God will add to that person the curses (“plagues”) of
the Book! And if any man dares to take away from that Revelation that
God will take away the blessings of that Book from the individual.
This is not some kind of minor, trivial point of theological dispute!
God, over and over again, says that your faith is not to rest in
human wisdom. You are not to use human wisdom to tamper with My Word!
You are not to add your own thought: “Hearken not to the Prophets
who don’t speak from the mouth of Jehovah”! You are not in your
wisdom to correct or subtract from My thoughts. And if you dare do
so, then I will punish you with the curses of the covenant! I will
withdraw the blessing; I will impose the curses if you tamper with My
Word!
Well,
I trust at this point we can see that this dispute between Roman
Catholics and Protestants (whoever happens to be right) is not some
meaningless point of idle theological debate! Are we under the curse
of God? Have we violated His Word? Have we presumed (in our own human
wisdom) to add to His own Word?
II.
Let’s take our discussion a step further now by talking about the
Apostles and the issue of tradition. The reason it’s necessary to
do this is that many of the contemporary polemicists for returning to
Rome, I think, have confused the people of God by appealing to
passages in the New Testament that speak about tradition, and then
just letting it be assumed (or wanting people to take for granted)
that when the New Testament speaks of tradition, it means tradition
in the sense of the Roman Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox, whichever
you want to pick) way of understanding tradition. There will be found
in your English translations of the New Testament verses that talk
about tradition as authoritative. And I’d like to now to take a
look at that so you understand it properly, and especially if you see
it in light of our first premise that we are not in our Christian
faith to follow the dogmas that are rooted in human wisdom. The New
Testament approach to tradition is not the approach to tradition of
the Roman Catholic Church!
So
where should we begin? How about with Hebrews 1, verses 1-2, for the
author of that epistle tells us that in the past God spoke to our
forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways —
but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son! The author of
Hebrews makes it clear that the epitome of God’s revelation is
found in the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He has
spoken to us in these last days by His Son! That is the high point,
the apex of all of God’s revelatory manners and means. Jesus Christ
is the highest revelation, the clearest revelation of God because
obviously Jesus is God Himself. The grandest expression of God’s
Word is found in the very person of Jesus, who John the Apostle, in
John 1:1 and in Revelation 19 calls “the Word of God.” Jesus is
“the Word of God,” he is the highest expression, the clearest,
fullest expression of Who God is to us as men!
Absolutely!
The Son has brought the final Word. I like St. John of the Cross's
words on this: “In
giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he
spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more
to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in
parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His
Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation
would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending
him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with
the desire for some other novelty.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm
And
how do we know about Jesus? Jesus isn’t on earth now, revealing
Himself to men in the way that He did to Matthew, John, and the
others. How do we know about Jesus today? Well, what we know about
Christ is dependent upon the written word of the Gospels, the Gospels
that were written by men like Matthew and Luke and Mark and John.
Jesus commissioned certain men to act as His authorized
representatives, i.e., Jesus delegated to certain men the right to
speak for Him. They had His ‘power of attorney’ (if I can use the
legal expression). In fact, that is very close to what the word
‘apostle’ meant in the days of the New Testament. The apostle of
a man was considered the man himself in a court of law. The apostle
could speak for that man, and the words spoken by the apostle was
legally accounted to be the word of the one that commissioned him!
Now
in John 14:26 we see that Jesus inspired the Apostles with His Word.
John 14:26, “But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” (ASV) Jesus said
that the Holy Spirit would be given so that the Apostles will have
brought to their remembrance all that Jesus taught, i.e., Jesus wants
to pass on to the world through the Apostles not their wisdom, not
their insight, but His own Word! Jesus, remember, is the high point
of God’s revelation. Jesus turns to the Apostles and says, “The
Spirit will bring to your mind everything that I have taught.”
Yes,
exactly. Jesus brought (and was) the final word, and he appointed
the apostles to “teach all that he had commanded.” He gave them
the Holy Spirit to bring to remembrance all that he said, to help
them interpret and apply it properly, etc. So the apostles
communicated to the world the final word brought by Christ.
In
Matthew 10:40, Jesus explains the concept of an apostle known well in
that day when He said, “He who receives you receives Me, and he who
receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” (NKJV) Jesus was sent by the
Father, and Jesus turns and sends the Apostles into the world. And He
says “the person who receives you (as My apostle) in fact receives
Me; and in so doing, receives the Father Who sent Me!” So you see
that the Apostles were spokesmen for Christ, authorized to speak His
Word, not their own, but to have brought to their remembrance what He
had taught. The Bible tells us that what the Apostles spoke they did
not speak by flesh and blood. They did not speak according to human
instruction. But rather they spoke by the revelation of the Father
and the Son!
Think
of Peter’s magnificent testimony to Jesus in Matthew 16:17. Jesus
says, “Who do you say that I am?” — he’s heard the Gallup
Poll results of what people in the culture are saying, but He wants
to know about His most intimate followers — “Who do you say that
I am?” And Peter, speaking for the Apostles, says, “You are the
Christ; You’re the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!” To which
Jesus responds with the commendation, “Peter, flesh and blood did
not reveal this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven.” “You
know this, not by human wisdom, not by human reasoning; you know this
by the revelation of God the Father!”
Or
if you look at Galatians 1:11-12 you will see that Paul himself is
jealous for the truth of the gospel and what he has taught precisely
because it is not his word, but the Word of Jesus Christ! Galatians
1:11-12, “For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel
which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I
receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through
revelation of Jesus Christ.” (ASV) Boy, we just see this everywhere
in the New Testament, not man but God — not man but God! Paul says
this is not a revelation that came to me from man, but it came to me
from Jesus Christ Himself.
The
Father and Jesus Christ revealed the Word to Apostles — and they
are taught by the Holy Spirit (as John 14:26 tells us) that Jesus
would give the Spirit to lead them into all truth and remind them
what He had taught. Yes, the Holy Spirit would
lead the apostles into all truth—help them to correctly interpret
and apply and unpack the final revelation of the Son entrusted to
them to communicate to the world and to use as the foundation for
establishing the church in the world. And the Bible tells us
it’s in virtue of this revelatory work of the Apostles — as they
reveal the Father and the Son in the power of the Spirit — it’s
in virtue of this revelatory work that Christ builds His Church upon
the foundation of the Apostles. When Peter makes his grand confession
that Jesus is the Messiah, He is the Christ, the Son of the Living
God, Jesus then names him ‘Peter’ — and He says, “Upon this
Rock, I will build My Church!” Upon the Rock? What Rock? Well, I
know that it is popular among some Protestants to teach that Jesus
was referring to Himself. And there’s some reason to think that
because God is considered “the Rock,” and in the Bible Jesus has
taught that the wise man builds his house upon “the Rock,” which
are the very Words of Jesus — there would be some New Testament
support for that kind of imagery! But there is not much support for
that in the text itself. If Jesus says, “You are Peter (masculine
form of ‘Rock’) and upon this Rock I will build My Church,”
where ‘this Rock’ refers to Jesus, you almost have to be there to
understand it! Because there you have Jesus saying, “And you are
Peter, you are Rock, and upon this Rock (now pointing back to
Himself) I will build My Church,” and that’s just too much
exegetical gymnastics, I think, to be a satisfactory interpretation.
Jesus
does build the Church upon — well, should we say Peter because that
sounds personal! It can’t be Peter as a person — and how do you
know that? Because if you read on in just a few verses Jesus calls
Peter ‘Satan’! He says, “Get thee behind Me Satan!” So if
Roman Catholics want to interpret that passage as referring Peter
personally, and they’re going to take the whole paragraph into
account where Jesus later calls Peter ‘Satan’, then I guess we’re
left with the conclusion that the Church is built upon the foundation
of Satan! Now that isn’t going to work either.
Of
course the rock is Peter. Jesus clearly calls Peter “rock,” and
then says that “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates
of hell will not prevail against it.” Then he gives Peter
personally the keys of the kingdom of heaven and tells him that
whatever he binds on earth is bound in heaven, etc. Scripture seems
rather clear on this point.
Well
then, what is ‘the Rock’ upon which the Church is built? Well, I
think it’s (1) important that you realize that Peter was speaking
for all of the Apostles. This wasn’t just one man’s opinion!
Jesus said, “But who do you (plural) say that I am? Not, “Who do
you (singular, Peter) say that I am?” And Peter now speaks for the
you plural and gives the answer, “You are the Messiah, the Son of
the Living God!” As Peter represents the confessing Apostles, Jesus
builds His Church upon Peter and the others. Yes,
the others are involved, but Peter seems also to be singled out
personally. But Peter, as a person, can just as much be Satan
when he departs from the Word of God, and later receives the rebuke
from Jesus! And so Jesus builds His Church upon the confessing
Apostles. I think that support for that interpretation will be found
in Ephesians 2:20 where Paul says (speaking of the household of God)
that it’s built upon “the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone.” (ASV)
There’s a sense in which the Church then is built upon the
foundation of the Apostles as they confess Christ truly and
faithfully... as they bring the Word of God... as they are the
authorized spokesmen for Jesus, then they provide the foundation for
the Church.
Yes,
I think that's basically right, except that I would add that it may
be that Peter played a role as head of the apostles. What the
apostles possessed as a group, Peter possessed also individually.
The RC position is that just as the apostles appointed the college of
bishops as their successors, so Peter appointed the bishop of Rome as
his successor. I don't think this can be proved from the text, but
it may be suggested by it, and I don't see that it contradicts it.
And
now this teaching of the Apostles was received as a body of truth
which was a criteria for doctrine and for life in the Church of Jesus
Christ. The teaching of the Apostles was received as a body of truth
that was the standard for doctrine and for life. To make my point
here, let me just refer to what the Apostles had as the truth. Now
this truth comes from God (we’ve already seen that it’s a
revelation of the Father and the Son and the power of the Spirit) —
this truth from God (I’m saying) was the standard for doctrine and
life in the early days of the Church.
Yes,
that's exactly it.
I
don’t think anyone has any problem with that, at this point. But
the question is: how did the Church come to know this Truth? How did
the Church, in its earliest days, learn of the apostolic truth from
God? How did they come into contact with this body of dogma that the
Apostles had every right and authority to communicate to God’s
people? Well, we know that the body of truth was ‘passed down’ to
the Church and through the Church. And because it was ‘passed down’
from the Apostles, it was often called “that which was delivered”
or “the deposit”.
See,
the truth gets ‘passed down’ to the Church! And because it’s
“passed down” or “handed over” — the Greek
word paradosis is used which means “to hand over”
— it can be translated “the deposit,” “that which is given by
hand,” that which is communicated from one person to another. And
that is translated into English often as “the tradition,” that
which is entrusted, that which is deposited, that which is delivered.
Or as I’ve said, handed over or committed to another, the
tradition. The Apostles have the truth from God and they hand it over
to the Church. They deliver it to the Church. And that comes to be
called the ‘tradition’! The ‘tradition’ is just the truth
that the Apostles teach as a revelation from God the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit.
Yes,
exactly.
Now
what does the New Testament tell us about this ‘tradition’? Let’s
look at a few verses together here for a few moments. Turn in your
Bibles please to II Timothy 1:13 and 14. II Timothy 1:13, Paul says,
“Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in
faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was
committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in
us.” (ASV) Here Paul speaks of the ‘deposit’ — that which has
been committed unto him — the ‘deposit’ that he has received,
he passes on and he says is to be guarded! The Apostolic ‘deposit’
then is the pattern of sound words for the Church. Notice that? “Hold
the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and
love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed
unto thee” — that ‘deposit’, that ‘pattern of sound words’
that is the system of doctrine (‘pattern of sound words’), that
system or network of healthy truth and teaching, the ‘pattern of
sound words’, is the Apostolic deposit.
Yes,
exactly.
In
I Timothy 6:20-21, we learn that this is to be guarded: “O Timothy,
guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the
profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely
so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”
(ASV) The pattern of sound words, the deposit of the Apostles, is to
be guarded. People put their faith in jeopardy when they do not!
Timothy is warned by Paul that some people professing to know the
truth have erred concerning the faith because they haven’t guarded
the Apostolic deposit.
Indeed,
the Apostolic deposit, “the pattern of sound words,” passed to
the Church by the Apostles was the standard for Christian life —
look at II Thessalonians 3:6 — “Now we command you, brethren, in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from
every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition
which they received of us.” (ASV) Here the English word ‘tradition’
is used — “that which was delivered from us and you received” —
if any brother departs from that, then you’re to withdraw
yourselves from him! That is the standard for Christian living: “the
pattern of sound words” delivered by the Apostles to the Church and
received by the Church.
Look
at II Peter 2:21, “For it were better for them not to have known
the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from
the holy commandment delivered unto them.” To turn away from that
which has been delivered by the Apostles is a horrible thing to do!
It’d be better that you never knew the truth than you should reject
it after the Apostolic deposit has been received.
And
moreover this ‘pattern of sound words’ which is to be guarded as
the standard for Christian living is to be the standard for all
future teaching in the Church — II Timothy 2:2, “And the things
which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit
thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” The
Apostles have a truth (a body of truth, a ‘pattern of sound words’)
received from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — they pass it on to
the Church. And the Church is to guard that Apostolic pattern of
sound words — they are to mark off as heretics those who depart
from it! They are to use that as the standard for all future teachers
in the Church.
Yes,
exactly. And note that there is development in the unpacking and
applying of the “pattern of sound words”--the deposit of truth.
For example, before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, the Christian church
did not have his command regarding how believing spouses should treat
unbelieving spouses. After he wrote and sent that letter, they did.
We have one body of truth, but that deposit is applied
developmentally over time in response to particular issues and needs
that arise, and it is applied authoritatively by the apostles on a
continuous basis because the apostles have the Holy Spirit to guide
them into all truth. Thus, the faith is “once for all delivered to
the saints,” and yet at the very moment of his saying so Jude was
“adding” to it in the sense of providing a further authoritative
unpacking of it.
What
is this tradition? Is it the holy tradition of the Eastern Orthodox
Church? Is it the tradition of the popes in the Roman Catholic
Church? No, it is the Apostolic tradition that truth which they have
received from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Can you not see that?
Yes, I can see that it is the Apostolic
tradition authorized by God. It should be obvious in the
reading of Scripture unless you go to the Bible trying to make it
prove some preconceived idea! That tradition, the deposit, that which
is handed over or delivered is not Church tradition, papal tradition
— it’s rather the pattern of sound words taught by the Apostles.
And they teach that on the basis of revelation from God the Father.
Well, Apostolic tradition may be the same as the church's tradition (further applied over time). Bahnsen has not yet proved that it is not, but merely asserted that it is not.
Now,
we have to ask the next question. We know what the truth is (it’s
the deposit). We know why it’s called tradition (because it’s
‘passed on’ to the Church and through the Church). Now the
question is: how was it passed? In what form was it passed to the
Church? And to answer that let’s turn in our Bibles to II
Thessalonians 2:15. Paul says, “So then, brethren, stand fast, and
hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by
epistle of ours.” Paul says, “Stand fast in the traditions,”
that is, what the Apostles have delivered, handed over to the Church!
Stand fast by that pattern of sound words, the truth, the deposit
that they have from God to give to God’s people. Stand fast by it!
And how did the Church learn about this deposit? How did the Apostles
hand it over or deliver it? Well, Paul tells us right here. They did
it not only by word but by epistle, by letter, by writing (if you
will). “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions
which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.”
And
so what I want to say is the truth was passed to the Church orally
and in writing. In two ways that same deposit (or pattern of sound
words) came to the Church. Is there any hint at all in this verse
that what Paul means is part of the tradition came orally and part of
the tradition came in writing — so make sure you keep the two of
them together so you get everything? Is there any hint of that? It’s
just the traditions; it’s just the deposit; it’s just the pattern
of sound words that is communicated in two different ways! Paul
doesn’t suggest that one or the other supplement the opposite. He
simply says guard the traditions — and you received them in writing
and you received them orally!
Paul
simply says here that he has passed on apostolic traditions both
orally and by letter. He doesn't say that exactly the same things
are in both; it may well be that some things were given orally and
some by letter, or it may be the same, from all we can tell from this
passage. But what is clear is that Paul commands the Thessalonians
to hold to both. Do they have authorization to only pay attention to
Paul's letters and ignore his oral instruction, or is his oral
instruction just as binding? Obviously the latter. So the apostolic
deposit is the apostolic deposit, whether it is delivered orally or
in writing. There is nothing about it being in writing that makes it
authoritative such that it wouldn't be without it.
Now
why am I stressing this point? Because, you see, Roman Catholics
maintain that if you only keep to the Written Apostolic Tradition,
you haven’t got the whole Word of God! You’ve got to have the
Oral Apostolic Tradition as well. Well, there’s just a huge logical
fallacy involved in that thinking! Because Paul doesn’t say, “Make
sure you hold on to the oral traditions and to the written
traditions,” does he? Well, actually, yes, he
does. He says, “Hold fast to the traditions whether you
heard them orally or in writing.” Can you see the difference there?
No, not really. Do you have one thing
that comes to the Church in two ways? Or do you have two things that
come to the Church? Paul's comment doesn't
specify whether the content of the two completely overlap or not.
What he does
clearly command is that the oral instructions are just as
authoritative as the written ones. What matters is that it is the
apostolic deposit, in whatever form it is delivered.
If
I might schematize the two different positions here, and what I have
been arguing is that Paul says the Apostolic traditions are the
pattern of sound words that govern the Church. And the Church, in
that day, learned of them both orally and in writing, because there’s
no suggestion when Paul says that there’s an oral aspect to the
teaching and a written aspect, and you’ve got to make sure you keep
the two together. And I’m emphasizing this because this is the
favorite verse of contemporary Roman Catholic apologists where they
try to prove that God’s people today must have oral tradition as
well, because it says right here that you’re to hold fast to those
traditions whether by word or epistle of ours. I
agree that this passage does not prove conclusively that there must
always be oral traditions with content in addition to that which is
written. It may be that the whole thing gets written down. But he
doesn't say otherwise either. What is
clear from the passage is that apostolic tradition is binding whether
it is written or not. Authority is not so linked to writing that
there is nothing authoritative without it.
And the answer to that, first of all, is that if you have it in either form you’ve got the ‘pattern of sound words’. But more than that, why is it that the truth could be passed through the Church orally and that would be binding on the Church? It’s because the one who was speaking this word had Apostolic authority! Remember Jesus said, “He who receives you receives Me!” So when the Apostles went to various congregations and taught, that was to be received as the very Word of Jesus Christ Himself. When the Apostles speak the Word of Christ, then that binds the Church.
And the answer to that, first of all, is that if you have it in either form you’ve got the ‘pattern of sound words’. But more than that, why is it that the truth could be passed through the Church orally and that would be binding on the Church? It’s because the one who was speaking this word had Apostolic authority! Remember Jesus said, “He who receives you receives Me!” So when the Apostles went to various congregations and taught, that was to be received as the very Word of Jesus Christ Himself. When the Apostles speak the Word of Christ, then that binds the Church.
Yes,
absolutely.
But
how about other teachers? Is their oral teaching authoritative in
virtue of it being oral? Do they carry Apostolic authority? How about
Dr. Bahnsen? Many of you (I’m happy to say) have some regard for my
teaching; you have a desire to learn and you invite me here to have
this nice conference, and dinner with you and so forth... What if I
were to stand up here and say, “I want you to believe what I’m
teaching you because I say it?” Do I have the right to do that? God
forbid! And you wouldn’t flatter me if you say, “You know, I
think you’re right because you’re so smart, or you’re Greg
Bahnsen, or you’re a minister in the OPC,” or whatever it is,
“therefore I’m going to believe it!” That’s not flattery! I
have no right, and you aren’t under any obligation to receive my
oral teaching just because it’s me speaking. I don’t have
Apostolic authority. Paul, on the other hand, did! John, on the other
hand, did! And when they taught orally, that was the truth passed
down from God to the Church.
Well,
the Catholic claim is that the apostles passed on their teaching
authority, at least in some ways, to the bishops of the church. We
see that in the New Testament pretty clearly. The Catholic claim is
that Christ brought the final word, the apostles were appointed to
communicate that word to the world and unpack and apply and interpret
it to the foundation of the early church, and their successors the
bishops have the task of continuing authoritatively (with guidance
from the Holy Spirit to get it right, just as the apostles had) to
gather (such as by gathering the canon of Scripture), interpret,
unpack and apply the apostolic deposit through the rest of church
history. There will be a developmental aspect to this as the deposit
is unpacked and applied over time in response to different issues and
circumstances, just as the apostles unpacked and applied the word of
Christ over time in the same way in the first century. Bahnsen has
yet to show anything from the Bible which contradicts this idea, but
he must do so to prove Sola Scriptura as he is supposed to be doing.
Now
when contemporary Roman Catholic apologists look at II Thessalonians
2:15 and say, “We’re bound to follow the traditions, oral as well
as written,” my response to that is not only are oral and written
two different ways of saying the same thing; but my response to that
is simply, I’m under obligation to listen to the oral teaching of
the Apostles; you’re absolutely right, and they’re not around any
more! And you know, catch up with what’s happening in the Church,
friend — we don’t have Apostles today! Where do you get the idea
— even on your misreading of this verse — where do you get the
idea that the authority of the Apostles in oral instruction has
passed on to other people?
It
would be more accurate to say that the apostolic authority to
authoritatively teach, interpret, and apply the Word of God has been
passed on to the bishops. Where do we get that idea? Well, the
Bible talks about the apostles appointing a continuing series of
teachers/shepherds in the church to continue to guide the flock after
the apostolic age. The people are commanded to listen to these
elders/bishops. Christ promised that the gates of hell would never
prevail against the church, and linked that promise to the keys of
the kingdom being given to Peter. The parable of the vinedressers
suggests that the church will never fail and need to be replaced like
the synagogue was. The Holy Spirit is given to the church in a way
not given to the Old Testament people of God, the people of the New
Covenant have promises not given to the people of the Old (though the
people of the Old are promised ultimate salvation and re-unification
with the New Covenant people). Etc. Do these things absolutely
prove that the bishops will be infallibly authoritative? Well, at
least it seems highly likely, given these promises. Certainly there
is nothing in Scripture that contradicts that picture, but in order
for Bahnsen to prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture he has to show
that there is. The burden of proof is on him, as he has phrased the
question. If he can't show positively that the Bible rejects the
Catholic conception of church authority and tradition and teaches
Sola Scriptura, he will have failed in his task in this paper.
Well
of course, those of you familiar with the Roman Catholic Church know
that they have something of an answer to that. However, I’ve never
known a Roman Catholic to think that their answer to that question
was based on biblical exegesis. They believe that the tradition of
the Apostles (or the authority of the Apostles) can be passed through
the office, particularly, of the vicar of Christ on earth, the pope,
and the pope has been ordained by previous popes ordained by previous
popes, the vicar of Christ, the deputy of Christ on earth. The
problem is, that’s not biblically founded! And that’s the closest
they would to being able to show that the authority of the Apostles
continues in the Church.
They
claim to show good reason to believe their view to be the case. Even
if it is true that they cannot prove it from Scripture alone, they do
not need to do that, because they do not hold to Sola Scriptura.
(They do have to prove it in some way; it's just that they aren't
required to prove it the Sola Scriptura way. Bahnsen, however, is
required to prove his views that way, because he's the one who
asserts Sola Scriptura.) I think they are able to provide adequate
evidence to support their position. I think there is a great deal of
biblical evidence to support their position. Is the biblical
evidence absolutely conclusive? Maybe not. But that's one of the
problems with Sola Scriptura, from the Catholic point of view—The
Bible does not always prove everything we need to know conclusively
all by itself, because it is not intended to function all by itself
in that way. Those who try to use it that way end up having to
stretch to get the information and backing they need.
But
you see, the authority of the Apostles continues in the Church not by
their oral instruction — that should be obvious; the Apostles are
dead! The authority of the Apostles continues in the Church through
their teaching, through the deposit that they have passed to the
Church. And the only way in which we now receive that deposit is in
writing. The Apostles are dead! They don’t orally instruct us! But
what they taught continues in their writings, in the Scriptures,
which we take as the standard of our faith.
Yes,
it is true that the New Testament contains the teaching of Christ and
the apostles, and so continues to represent their authority in the
church after apostolic times. But it doesn't follow from this that
there are no oral traditions that have also been passed down, and it
doesn't follow that the bishops of the church have not been given
infallible authority to gather, interpret, unpack, and apply the Word
of God (including the apostolic deposit) for the church. Bahnsen
hasn't proved these things from Scripture yet, but he must to prove
Sola Scriptura from Scripture.
Indeed,
in the NT, what the Apostles wrote was to be accounted as the very
Word of God. Look at I Corinthians 14:37, “If any man thinks
himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the
things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the
Lord.” And indeed, what the Apostles wrote was not only accounted
as the very Word of God, their written epistles came to have for the
Church the same authority as what Peter called “the other
Scriptures.” Look at II Peter 3:16! Peter’s talking about “our
beloved brother Paul,” and he says, “as also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be
understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also
the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” Peter puts the
writings of Paul in the same category as “the other Scriptures”
(that would be the OT). Yes. Paul and
what he writes has the same authority as did the Old Testament for
God’s people in that day! There is no continuing supply of new
Apostolic oral instruction! No one claims there
is. The Catholic claim rather is that the bishops have the
infallible authority to interpret and apply what has already been
given. But in the Scriptures, written by the Apostles, we find
the same authority, the same inspired Word of God as the Old
Testament for us. Beyond the first generation of the Church, after
the Apostles passed away, the authority of the Apostles was found in
their written word in the objective testimony that they left the
Church, not in their subjective personal instruction. Because the
office of Apostle and the gifts which accompany the ministry of the
Apostles were intended to be temporary, they were confined to the
founding of the Church.
Yes,
but it doesn't follow from any of this that there is not also a
continuing authority given to bishops in the church to
authoritatively interpret and apply the Word of God. The New
Testament does not only speak of the Scriptures as authorities, but
also commands us to obey the elders/bishops appointed by the
apostles, and it talks about those elders appointing other elders, in
continuous succession.
The
office of Apostle is not a continuing office in the Church! To be an
Apostle it was required to be a witness of the resurrected Christ as
we see in Acts 1:22 — also reflected in Paul’s defense of his
Apostolic credentials in I Corinthians 9:1. Moreover, it was required
that you be personally commissioned by the Lord Himself which is what
Paul claims in Galatians 1:1, that He is an Apostle not by the Word
of men but by revelation of Jesus Christ! The Apostles were those who
were witnesses of the resurrected Christ and personally commissioned
by Him. And thus the Apostolic office was restricted to the first
generation of the Church. Yes, Catholics agree
with this. Paul considered Himself “the least” (perhaps
translated “the last”) of the Apostles in I Corinthians 15. And
Paul’s personal successor Timothy is never given that title in the
New Testament. And so in the very nature of the case, Apostolic
revelation did not extend beyond the Apostolic generation. It never
extended beyond the foundational days of the Church! Yes,
that is true. But it doesn't follow from this that the later leaders
of the church have not been given infallible authority, guided by the
Holy Spirit (who was given to the church until the end of time, was
he not?), to continue to authoritatively interpret and apply the Word
of God for the church. Ephesians 2:20 says the Church is
founded upon the Apostles and Prophets, Christ being the chief
cornerstone. And beyond the foundational days of the Church, the
foundation-laying days of the Church, there is no Apostolic
revelation. And that’s why when you look at Jude (the 3rd verse)
you see the author in his own day — when Apostolic instruction was
still current by the way — Jude in his own day could speak of “the
faith” as “once for all delivered unto the saints.” The ‘faith’
here is the teaching content of the Christian faith! It is that dogma
(if you will), that truth given by the Apostles through the
Revelation of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Jude says “the faith”
has “once for all” been “delivered unto the saints.”
Yes,
this is interesting. Jude speaks of the faith “once for all”
delivered, and yet he is at that very moment writing further
Scripture. Apparently when the Bible talks about the deliverance of
revelation as a completed past event, it doesn't mean that there is
not still further authoritative teaching going on. The Son was the
final word, the completion of revelation—and yet the apostles
taught infallibly and authoritatively and wrote further Scripture.
So it is also that the apostles provided the complete foundation for
the church, and their office is now extinct, and yet their
successors, the bishops, have been granted power and authority to
infallibly and authoritatively continue to gather, interpret, unpack,
and apply the deposit of faith for the church progressively over the
whole future history of the church. Bahnsen has provided no biblical
evidence so far that this is not true, but he must do this to prove
Sola Scriptura from the Bible.
About
that verse, F. F. Bruce wrote these words: “Therefore all claims to
convey an additional revelation are false claims, whether these
claims are embodied in books which aim at superseding or
supplementing the Bible, or take the form of extra-biblical
traditions, which are promulgated as dogma by ecclesiastical
authority.” The Catholics agree that there
is no further revelation, and that the foundation has already fully
been laid. Their claim is simply that Christ, the prophets, and
apostles, left us a deposit of faith, transmitted mostly in the
Scriptures but also in some unwritten memories and practices, and
that the job of the leaders of the church is to infallibly and
authoritatively interpret and apply this deposit over church history.
The faith, the deposit, the tradition has once and for all been
delivered to the Church! And that was accomplished in the generation
of the Apostles. It is not a growing tradition. It is not a living
tradition by which we mean something the pope or others can add to!
How about gather, interpret, unpack, and apply?
Notice how Bahnsen makes it appear that he has proved his point by a
subtle use of words (I'm certainly not suggesting any intentional
deception)? “The foundation has
been laid once for all, so it cannot
be added to,
which is what the Catholic Church tries to do.” But this is an
inaccurate way of stating things, and it prejudices irrationally by
words. The teaching of the Catholic Church is not to be thought of
as an addition
to the foundation of the Word of God, but an authoritative unpacking
and applying of it. Again, using Bahnsen's way of talking, we might
accuse the apostles of unwarrantedly adding
to what Christ revealed. After all, the Son is the final
revelation. The faith was once
for all delivered (so you're wrong
to be writing more Scripture, Jude!). Christ told his disciples to
teach whatsoever he had
commanded them. Etc. And yet there
they are, writing more Scripture, teaching authoritatively! It is
wrong! Well, of course, it's not. We have no right to read into
words more than we can prove by them. Christ was the final
revelation, but it wasn't such a finality as to exclude an
authoritative apostolic unpacking of it, even involving the writing
of new Scripture (or receiving a new apocalyptic revelation, as in
the Book of Revelation). The apostles delivered the full foundation
of the Christian deposit, but their finality was not such as to
preclude their successors having power and authority from the Holy
Spirit to authoritatively gather, interpret, unpack, and apply the
deposit progressively through church history. Or, at least there is
nothing in the Scriptures to prove that or even really suggest it.
Bahnsen is just reading it into the passages. That's the problem
with Sola Scriptura. We need to know things to live the Christian
life the Bible simply is not entirely clear on. If we have nothing
else to go on, we must try to infer and guess at the implications of
what is not said explicitly or clearly. But if it turns out that
Sola Scriptura is not the right way to use the Bible, it is virtually
inevitable that we will eventually go wrong in some ways if we do
this. It is simply the body of truth that the Apostles,
having received by divine revelation, passed on to the Church,
whether orally in their own day or by writing.
Now,
what governs the Church today? Is it the oral teaching of the
Apostles? Well, that couldn’t very easily be true; the Apostles are
dead (just to repeat that point). And so it has to be the teaching of
the Apostles in some objective form. That means it would be the
written word of the Apostles.
Bahnsen
assumes, without argument, that there could be no “objective”
oral transmission of tradition. He assumes that, presumably, because
it would hard to verify which alleged oral transmissions are really
apostolic and distinguish them from those that aren't if we have no
infallible guide to go by in distinguishing. And he's right. But
he's begging the question, because the Catholic position is that we
do have such an infallible guide in the magisterium. Bahsen
therefore cannot merely assume we have no such guide—he must
prove it (and prove it from Scripture, if he will
fulfill the task he has set out to do).
III.
So thirdly, we need to look at the need for inscripturation—the
need for God’s Word to be committed to writing. God verbally
revealed Himself in many ways from the beginning of redemptive
history. God was not restricted to writing! Throughout the
development of redemptive history and the growth of God’s people,
God revealed Himself not only in writing, but through personal
messengers, sometimes by personal address and appearing to people.
God spoke directly to Adam; He spoke directly to Abraham. God was
heard in the inspired preaching of Jonah, Amos, and Ezekiel. Christ
and the Apostles engaged in oral instruction. We’ve already granted
that that the Apostolic tradition came both in written form and oral
instruction.
But
that’s not the only way God has communicated with His people
throughout history. He’s also sent His Word in writing to them.
From the tablets of the Mosaic Law to the written messages of Isaiah
or Jeremiah, as well as the epistles of Paul, God has revealed
Himself in writing, in inscripturated form! Now this is the stuff
that I want you to pick up on here. The Word of God, which was
originally delivered orally, needed to be reduced to writing in order
for the rest of God’s people to know about it and for it to
function as an objective standard for faith and obedience. Where God
had spoken by personal address orally, if that was going to be a
standard for the Church at large (for all of God’s people), that
oral instruction (as authoritative as it was in itself) needed to be
reduced to writing so that it would be an objective standard that
governed all of God’s people... An objective standard to test the
prophets who proclaimed these words... An objective standard to test
later claims to revelation... To have a standard by which to compare
what other alleged prophets would say... An objective standard for
the establishment of a corporate body as the church and by which it
could be defined in all generations... An objective standard for the
better preserving and propagating of that truth... An objective
standard to guard against corruption and the malice of Satan and the
world who would love to foul-up the lines of communication if we’re
just going to depend upon oral instruction... An objective standard
to communicate assurance of salvation to people against human
opinions, and the way in which even their preacher or their priest
might communicate God’s Word to them.
Well,
it is certainly easy to see the advantages of writing. But Bahnsen's
conclusion here is, I think, overstepping his evidence a bit. He
seems to be assuming that God could not effectively preserve
an oral transmission of his Word. But why couldn't he do that? I
can think of no reason. Bahnsen also overlooks the point that even
written transmission can be corrupted. How do we know the biblical
manuscript evidence we have can be trusted? Sure, we can do textual
criticism and decide there is a great degree of overall reliability,
but we couldn't prove an absolute preservation merely in that way.
We need to add the assumption that God has, in his providence,
preserved the text. Well, if God can ensure that the human writers
of Scripture communicate no error, and if he can ensure the reliable
transmission of the written text, why couldn't he, if he wished,
ensure the reliable transmission of an oral tradition? Perhaps an
infallible magisterium would come in handy there, if we've got one
available!
I
would add that it seems to me there is evidence there may have been
some transmission of truth through oral means in Old Testament times.
Think of the temple instructions transmitted through David. All all
of them written in the Old Testament? It appears to me you couldn't
run the whole temple ritual completely with just the Old Testament.
I need to think about this a bit more, but, at the moment, it seems
to me that one would need oral instruction as well. The Old
Testament only gives an outline, but not the specifics of how to run
things. Or think about details of truth that the New Testament
quotes which are not found in the Old Testament—like the names
Jannes and Jambres, the quotations from Enoch, the mention of Michael
and Satan arguing over the body of Moses, etc. No doubt the
fundamental foundation and “main stuff” was written, but perhaps
there were supplementary details transmitted orally. That's
basically the Catholic claim for the apostolic deposit and the New
Testament as well.
God’s
Word needed really, needed?
to be inscripturated to govern His people through all
generations. And so it’s not surprising that this written Scripture
became the standard for testing even the prophets — and this is the
amazing thing — and the standard for testing the Apostles!
That's
not too surprising. It would make sense to evaluate the message of
the apostles (and Christ) by means of comparison to God's previous
revelation, delivered primarily in the Old Testament.
Now
in my second point up here, I’ve already granted that the Apostles
have authority in their oral instruction to deliver the deposit of
God to the Church. And now I’m adding another dimension which (I
think) is very important that the Apostles — when there was any
question about what they taught — the Apostles who had the
authority of Christ nevertheless appealed to inscripturated
revelation as the basis for what they taught.
In
the Old Testament, the word of false prophets was exposed by the
previously inscribed Law. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 says if any prophet
comes and teaches contrary to what’s been revealed before that that
prophet is to be executed. That prophet presumes to speak for himself
and he says something contrary to what is already written down in the
Law. In Isaiah 8:20 we read, “To the Law and to the Testimony!”
That didn’t mean to the oral testimony; it meant to the written
inscribed testimony of God’s prophets and the Law which was already
there in writing.
Even
our Lord Jesus Christ, when not appealing to His own inherent
authority, clinched His arguments with His opponents by saying, “It
stands written!” or “Have you not read” in the Bible? He said,
“Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have
eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me.” John
5:39 (ASV) In Jesus’ day, Jesus acknowledges that the appropriate
approach to salvation was to search for it in the Scriptures! And you
know, that in Jesus’ day, the scribes had about as much authority
as has ever been given to human tradition. Evidence
for this claim? It seems to me the fact that the New Covenant people
have the Spirit in a new way, are promised they will never fail, and
are contrasted with the failure of the Old Covenant leaders, suggests
a greater power and authority in the New Covenant leaders than the
Old Covenant leaders. And yet, Jesus pointed them to the
Scriptures, not to the oral tradition, not to the authority of the
scribes, but to the Scriptures. And then He said, “The Scriptures
bear witness of Me!”
Again,
it is not surprising that Jesus appealed to the Old Testament to
establish his validity. The Old Testament is the previous Word of
God. It also contains the descriptions of the coming Messiah. So of
course Christ would appeal to it.
On
the other hand, he wouldn't appeal to the authority of the scribes,
because they were clearly not granted infallibility and would reject
him. The fact that the Old Covenant leaders were not granted
infallibility does not prove that the New Covenant leaders would not
be. There are, again, great differences. The New Covenant people
and leaders are promised that the gates of hell will not prevail,
that they will succeed where the Old Covenant leaders failed, that
they have the Holy Spirit with them (one of whose function is to
“guide into all truth”) in a new and special way, that they have
the substance (Christ has come) in the New Covenant, etc.
Why
did Jesus not appeal to oral tradition to validate his messianic
claims? Perhaps because there was no authoritative oral tradition.
If this is the case, it would not prove there would be no such thing
in New Covenant times. Perhaps the Old Covenant people received
periodic revelations from outside (prophets, etc.), while the New
Covenant people do not need this because the final revelation has
come, and they have the Spirit to guide them, etc., so that for them
God's guidance will be internal, etc. But perhaps there was oral
tradition in OT times, and yet it was only supplemental details to
the written Old Testament. In that case, why would Jesus appeal to
it? He would appeal to what was relevant, and it is clear that the
foundation of the Jewish faith, including the Messianic information,
was found in the written Old Testament. (For the same reason, the
early church fathers are always trying to prove their doctrine from
the written Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and not from
unwritten traditions, even though they testify that there were those.
But they were only supplemental details, not the foundation of
doctrine.)
In
the New Testament, the “spirit of error” was to be identified by
comparing whatever the prophets are saying to the teaching of the
Apostles. In I John 4:6, the Apostle John says, “He who knows God
hears us!” That’s the standard; what we have taught! In I
Corinthians 14:37, Paul says, “If any man thinks himself to be a
prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I
write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.” And
yet, even the Apostles called for the Church to test their own
instruction according to the written revelation of God, according to
the Scriptures which were in hand.
Yes,
of course, because it makes sense to test new claimed revelations by
already-known revelation.
Why
did Paul commend the Bereans? What were the Bereans doing? In Acts
17:11, you’ll read of this commendation because (he says) “they
examined the Scriptures daily whether these things were so,” i.e.,
the things taught by Paul. Paul commends that; and he’s an Apostle!
He’s got ‘Power of Attorney’ for the Lord Jesus Christ. He
speaks with the authority of the Savior Himself! And yet, even with
that Apostolic authority, Paul commends them, because when they
wanted to test what he was saying, they went to the written
Scriptures to see if these things were so.
Exactly.
So we see that the fact that there exists written authoritative
Scriptures, and that we are to test things by them, does not prove
that there is not further ongoing authoritative, infallible teaching
as well. So how does this prove Sola Scriptura?
In
I Corinthians 4:6, we have what amounts to a virtual declaration of
the Protestant doctrine or principle of Sola Scriptura! I Corinthians
4:6, Paul says, “Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure
transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us you
might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no
one of you be puffed up for the one against the other.” Paul says,
“Brothers, I have applied (I’ve used a figure of speech) I’ve
applied these things (I think he’s referring here “these things”
about pride in men, or in their ministries) — I’ve applied these
things to myself and to Apollos for your benefit in order that you
might learn by us,” the saying, “not to go beyond the things
which are written.
Isn’t
that amazing? Here’s Paul (long before Luther, long before Calvin,
long before the controversy in the late 20th century) saying, I want
you to learn the meaning of this, “Not to go beyond the things
which are written!” That you may learn from us the meaning of the
saying, “Do not go beyond what is written!” (That’s the NIV.)
The RSV says, “that you may learn by us to live according to
Scripture.” Or in the Tyndale Commentary on this verse, Leon Morris
says, “that what Paul is referring to is a ‘catch’ cry familiar
to Paul and his readers, directing attention to the need for
conformity to Scripture.” A ‘catch’ cry, a popular slogan! “Not
to go beyond the things written!” And Paul says I want you to learn
the meaning of that! That is an important principle for you! It is
very simply the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura.
How
does this saying prove Sola Scriptura? Whatever the saying means, it
can't mean “Don't listen to anything unless it is written down,
ignore all further authoritative teaching, especially when
it's given orally,” because right as Paul is recounting this saying
to the Corinthians, he is giving them more authoritative teaching!
Is he telling them here to ignore him if he speaks to them orally,
and only to listen to things he's written down? If so, how does that
fit with the fact that Christ and the apostles taught orally, and
that Paul commands the Thessalonians, as we saw above, to listen to
and keep as authoritative all the traditions he gave to them,
whether delivered orally or in written form? If “Don't go beyond
what is written” means “don't take anything as authoritative that
is not written,” as Bahnsen here seems to be suggesting, that this
contradicts Paul's command to the Thessalonians to follow his oral
teaching as authoritative as well. If the saying doesn't mean
that—if it doesn't preclude there being additional teaching, and
even additional oral teaching, that we are supposed to take as
authoritative—then it is irrelevant for proving Sola Scriptura.
It
seems to me that the very fact that Protestants feel a need to resort
to such texts as these suggests how hard it is to prove Sola
Scriptura from Scripture. They can't point to it being taught
clearly anywhere, so they have to try to infer it from the best
passages they can find, and in doing so they provide an illustration
of how much dubious inferring one has to do to make use of Sola
Scriptura. Could it be that God doesn't want us to use the Bible in
that way? Maybe we're missing something—like a context involving
both oral tradition and an infallible magisterium which is intended
to provide aid to us in interpreting and applying Scripture?
Now,
let me end here by asking three, maybe four, pointed questions, or
making three or four pointed observations rhetorically about the
Roman Catholic Church and its appeal to tradition over and above the
words of the Old and New Testament.
“Over
and above”? Bahnsen's words seem to suggest that Catholics favor
tradition over the Scriptures. But the Catholic position is
that God intended the Scriptures to be used within the context of
oral tradition and an infallible magisterium. If that is the case,
it is not a matter of choosing one over another, for all fit together
into a single harmonized system. To pit them against each other as
if they are in competition is to portray the situation in a
question-begging way, for it is to portray the situation as if
Sola Scriptura is true, when that is precisely the point that needs
to be proved.
(1)
The first question is this: What is it precisely that Rome accepts as
a source of doctrinal truth and authority in addition to the
Scriptures? What is it that they accept? They
accept some oral traditions, and the teaching of the infallible
magisterium as it gathers, interprets, unpacks, and applies Scripture
and tradition. Because, you see, when they talk to some Roman
Catholics, they’ll tell you, “We accept the tradition of the
Church because it stems from the Apostles!” As though the Apostles
orally taught something, and in every generation that teaching has
been passed on orally. I don’t know why it would never be (you
know) put down in writing! Why must it be? Is
there some kind of a priori logical
argument to make for this position? If so, what is it? “Bahnsen
thinks that would be weird” doesn't seem sufficient to me. The
letters from the apostles in the New Testament are obviously
occasional in nature. They are not in the form of a systematic,
detailed theology or set of instructions. It could be that the
church collected them (authoritatively, led by the Spirit) because in
them is contained the heart of the apostolic teaching, and yet at the
same time there are some details that weren't written down in them
and can be filled in by looking to the living memory and practice of
the church. Why not? Why is this so impossible?
But, it never was put down in writing; it comes down to us
only in oral form. Other Roman Catholics will tell you that they are
committed to tradition not only from the original teaching of the
Apostles allegedly, but also ecclesiastical tradition (i.e., what the
Church itself has generated through papal decree or the councils)
whether the Apostles originally said it or not!
Bahnsen
is creating a difference that doesn't really exist in Catholicism.
All orthodox Catholics hold that there is written Scripture, there is
some oral tradition coming from the apostles, and there is the
infallible teaching of the church through the ages which consists of
authoritative interpretation and application of Scripture and
tradition.
And
so you need to be clear when you’re talking to a Roman Catholic.
What is it they would add to the Scripture? What do they mean by
tradition? And then after they answer that question, we have to ask,
“Well, how do you properly identify tradition?” After all, not
all tradition is tradition to the Roman Catholic. There are some
things which were done traditionally in the Church which Roman
Catholics would say should not have been done, or which they do not
consider authoritative. Not all tradition counts then as
authoritative tradition! Well, how do you properly identify
authoritative tradition?
That's
the job of the magisterium.
And
then another question, “What are the proper bounds of authoritative
tradition?” Has all oral tradition now been divulged? Yes.
Has everything the Apostles taught now been given to the Church?
Yes. That has to be answered by Roman
Catholics; or are we still waiting for this to build and build and
build? Bahnsen is confuing the idea of further
oral teaching from the apostles with the idea of the church
progressively interpreting and applying the apostolic deposit. The
apostolic deposit was completely given in the first century, but the
interpretation, unpacking, and application of it goes on until the
end of the world. Just as Christ's final revelation was completed
when he ascended (at least for the most part), and yet the unpacking
and applying of that is done by the apostles progressively over time,
in response to particular circumstances (issues raised, questions
asked, etc.--think of the Jerusalem Council, or Paul's letters to
various churches). Is tradition limited to what was orally
taught by the Apostles? Is every tradition allegedly something that
traces back to them (the Apostles)? And then, “By what warrant,
theological or epistemological, by what warrant does Rome accept this
additional source of doctrine or ethical truth?”
The
Catholic answer would be that there is good evidence to go the Catholic way. Part of that evidence would be the fact that we are
commanded to follow the teachers of the church and preserve church
unity, combined with the fact that there is no good reason to believe
in Sola Scriptura (as Bahnsen has illustrated, it cannot be proved
from Scripture). Other parts of the answer would involve a
comparison of epistemological claims of the Eastern Orthodox with the
Roman Catholic church. Etc. I won't provide a case right now. But
obviously Bahnsen's simple question, “What is your case?”, is no
proof that Catholics don't have one. It's a good question, but it's
no answer or proof of an answer.
So
let me focus all of this in a challenge. (This is still part of
number one here in conclusion.) My challenges to my Roman Catholic
friends: give me a convincing example of some doctrinal or ethical
principle which make the following five criteria. Give me an example
of some doctrinal or ethical principle that is (1) not already in
Scripture; (2) not contrary to Scripture; (3) based upon what is
properly identified as tradition (that’s what all these
introductory questions were about); (4) is necessary in some sense to
the Christian life or Church (necessary); and (5) could not have been
revealed during the days of the Apostles.
I'm
not sure I understand the question. When Bahnsen says “tradition”
here, does he mean “the oral teaching or practice of the apostles,”
or does he mean “the infallible teaching of the magisterium,” or
both? Obviously, all the oral teaching of the apostles would have
been delivered during the days of the apostles, so there is no
example if that is what he means. If he means to refer to the
teaching of the magisterium, then there has been lots of teaching
given over the past two thousand years, all of it based (in the
Catholic claim) on the apostolic deposit, as that has been
interpreted, unpacked, and applied. But I don't really understand
what Bahnsen's question is getting at, or why it is relevant to the
Sola Scriptura discussion. If only I had access to an infallible
magisterium to help me understand more clearly what Bahnsen is saying
here!
If
the Roman Catholic Church intends to be taken seriously when it tells
us that tradition supplements Scripture, then it should be able to
offer an example of something that is not in the Bible, that’s not
contrary to the Bible, it’s part of what’s properly considered
tradition, is necessary for the Church but could not be revealed in
the days of the Apostles. Why? I still don't
get what he is getting at. We have to understand why it
couldn’t have been revealed in the days of the Apostles! That’s
the first problem that I would give to my Roman Catholic friends. Can
you even give me a convincing illustration of something that matches
all these criteria?
(2)
Secondly, I want you to notice the problem with the oral nature of
tradition, and it’s found right in the pages of the New Testament
itself in John 21... John 21 at the 23rd verse... This follows the
words of our Lord Jesus to Peter about being “girded about and
taken where he does not wish to go”... Verse 19 says, “Now this
he spake, signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God.”
Verse 20: “Peter, turning about, sees the disciple whom Jesus loved
following (John); who also leaned back on his breast at the supper,
and said, Lord, who is he that betrayeth thee? Peter therefore seeing
him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith
unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
Follow thou me.” Now verse 23: “This saying therefore went forth
among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said
not unto him, that he should not die; but, If I will that he (John)
tarry till I come, what is that to thee?”
In
verse 23, we already have an indication in the New Testament of the
unreliability of oral tradition. Right there, it’s called down!
That is notwhat Jesus was trying to communicate. And so secondly, you
have to understand that, Roman Catholics who think they’re relying
upon what orally traces all the way back to the Apostles, already (in
the days of the New Testament) what was orally taught was being
corrupted — and testimony is given to it!
How
does this show the unreliability of oral tradition? There is no
evidence here that Jesus's words were corrupted in transmission, but
simply that they were misinterpreted. But that obviously happens
with Scripture as well, so if Bahnsen's reasoning is good--”Oral
tradition is unreliable if it can be misinterpreted”--then it also
follows that Scripture is unreliable—which somehow I don't think
Bahnsen would grant.
But,
though he picked a bad example to prove it, Bahnsen is certainly
right that oral tradition can become corrupted. So can written
tradition (though written tradition, in many cases at least, might be
more easy to correct to some extent). So what? That's only a
problem if we don't have an infallible, authoritative magisterium.
But Catholics think we do, so how is this an argument against their
position?
(3)
Thirdly, what is a believer to do when Church traditions contradict
each other? There are many traditions in the Church and they are not
all harmonious. Some traditions in the church support the office of
the universal bishop; other traditions denounce the office of a
universal bishop (read Gregory the Great and Cyprian for instance).
Again,
that's what the magisterium is for. And it's what the papacy is for.
What
are we to do with the tradition that was alive in the early Church
that said Christ would shortly return and establish an earthly
kingdom? Other traditions contradict it! What do we do about the use
of images as a help to worship, or a help to prayer? Some traditions
in the Church endorse the use of images; other traditions in the
Church condemn the use of images! If tradition is authoritative, what
are we to do with conflicting traditions?
Magisterium.
(4)
And then finally, fourth, I would just make this observation: that
the distinctive and the controversial doctrines or practices of the
Roman Catholic Church (the distinctive and controversial doctrines,
and practices of the Roman Church) are all founded solely upon
alleged tradition! Purgatory, the mass, transubstantiation,
indulgences, the treasury of merit, penance, the rosary, prayers to
Mary, holy water, the papacy, and on and on. Those things which are
distinctive to the Roman Catholic Church, you will find, that when
you get into debates with Roman Catholics, they appeal not to
biblical exegesis to support, but they appeal to this alleged
Apostolic Oral Tradition that supposed to still be alive in the
Church. And I think that’s just asking a bit too much of anybody to
expect that those heavy and controversial points could be founded not
upon an objective Word from God (in the way that we’ve seen at the
beginning of tonight’s lecture), but to be founded upon an
unverifiable, subjectively adduced tradition that is said to be
Apostolic.
For
one thing, this is not true. Catholics do make biblical arguments
for many of these points. They believe the church has the authority
to unpack and apply the teaching of Scripture, and that that is what
the church has done in developing many of these doctrines. If the
response is, “Well, I can't prove these from Scripture!”
the response might be, “Well, maybe you can't, but you
aren't the magisterium. It's not your job. Why should you expect to
be able to do it as well?” I am reminded of Jesus's argument from
Scripture against the Sadducees in Luke 20:37-38 (about how since
God is the God of Abraham, etc.,. this proves that the dead
are raised). I suspect I am not the only person in the world who
thinks that, on the surface, that looks like a really weak argument.
Has Jesus really shown the resurrection of the dead from these words?
Would we say this was a good argument if someone non-inspired had
used it? I think many of us wouldn't. But Jesus was not just
another ordinary exegete. He had the right, as Messiah, to unpack,
interpret, and apply Scripture. He can help clarify and unpack what
perhaps others cannot so well. He can develop out implications that
others may not be able to. The only way to get Scripture right is to
follow the interpretations of God's authorized interpreters. If God
has given us authorized interpreters, and intended us to make use of
them to interpret and apply Scripture, wouldn't we expect confusion
and error if we ignore the means God has given?
Also,
again, Bahnsen is begging the question by assuming any oral tradition
must be unverifiable and therefore subjective. But that's only true
if there is no infallible magisterium involved. But Catholics think
there is, and Bahnsen has not proved there isn't, so his claim is
question-begging. It's assuming what needs to be proved.
Now
I think that once you think about this and what the Bible has to say
about authority in our doctrinal convictions and our practices —
when you think about the abuses that arise, and the confusion that
arises from trying to follow oral tradition Look
who's talking! It's sure a good thing that Protestants have been
able to use Sola Scriptura to avoid doctrinal confusion! —
when you see that even the Apostles were tested by the written Word
of God, I think that I would still like to stand with Martin Luther.
I’m not willing to recant or to affirm any doctrine unless it can
be shown to be taught on the basis of Scripture and Scripture alone!
That’s not a Protestant concoction; that, you see, is just honing
very closely to the very teaching of God’s Word itself! We should
all learn this principle: “Not to go beyond the things which are
written!”
POSTSCRIPT: This is already alluded to above, but I thought I would add more explicitly what I think is a damning problem with the biblical texts offered as alleged support for Sola Scriptura. The problem is that no one thinks that Sola Scriptura was actually a method in operation during the time of the Scriptures, and particularly during the time of the New Testament (from whence most texts supposedly supporting Sola Scriptura are from). It is clear that during the New Testament era further Scriptures were being written and there was authoritative oral teaching going around. The deposit of faith was being continually elaborated upon by means of authoritative teaching (such as with the Jerusalem Council, or with further apostolic letters). There are no biblical texts which prophesy that Sola Scriptura will be the method used in the future; all of them (so far as I can recall) refer to the present (at the time of writing). For example, the text commending the Bereans for being noble-minded as they checked the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true commends the Bereans for doing this at the time and not in the future. And yet this cannot be a commendation of Sola Scriptura, for surely the Bereans, like all the other Christians of the time, were to follow the oral teaching of the apostles, look for further written Scriptures, listen to authoritative councils that might arise, etc. In short, everyone grants that the Bereans at that time were supposed to be acting like Catholics rather than like Protestants, and therefore the text commending them cannot be commending them for Sola Scriptura, so the text cannot be used as a proof-text for Sola Scriptura. I pointed this out with regard to some other texts appealed to in the commentary above.
Let me end by referring you to a wonderful little fictional dialogue written by Jason Stewart, a former OPC pastor who came into full communion with the Catholic Church in 2011. Stewart imaginatively considers what it might have been like if Christians were actually practicing Sola Scriptura at the time of the Jerusalem Council discussed in Acts 15. The results are very illuminating both in terms of examining Sola Scriptura as well as in terms of understanding Protestant objections to various developments of doctrine put forward by the Catholic Church over the millennia.
ADDENDUM 2/16/16: Here, here, and here are a couple of good, short, succinct articles asking some tough questions of Sola Scriptura. Sometimes Protestants (like Keith Mathison) protest that Sola Scriptura has been misunderstood, and that it doesn't involve reliance on individual private interpretation over and above everything else. Here is a great article responding to that, and here is another article related to that topic.
ADDENDUM 5/3/16: Here is another article I've recently written pointing out how Sola Scriptura proponents often don't like it when the full practical and logical implications of the doctrine are spelled out too bluntly or acted upon too consistently.
ADDENDUM 8/20/16: Ken Hensley has written up some nice critiques of Sola Scriptura in a series of articles that can be found here. Look for the "Why I'm Catholic: Sola Scriptura . . ." titles.
THE END
POSTSCRIPT: This is already alluded to above, but I thought I would add more explicitly what I think is a damning problem with the biblical texts offered as alleged support for Sola Scriptura. The problem is that no one thinks that Sola Scriptura was actually a method in operation during the time of the Scriptures, and particularly during the time of the New Testament (from whence most texts supposedly supporting Sola Scriptura are from). It is clear that during the New Testament era further Scriptures were being written and there was authoritative oral teaching going around. The deposit of faith was being continually elaborated upon by means of authoritative teaching (such as with the Jerusalem Council, or with further apostolic letters). There are no biblical texts which prophesy that Sola Scriptura will be the method used in the future; all of them (so far as I can recall) refer to the present (at the time of writing). For example, the text commending the Bereans for being noble-minded as they checked the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true commends the Bereans for doing this at the time and not in the future. And yet this cannot be a commendation of Sola Scriptura, for surely the Bereans, like all the other Christians of the time, were to follow the oral teaching of the apostles, look for further written Scriptures, listen to authoritative councils that might arise, etc. In short, everyone grants that the Bereans at that time were supposed to be acting like Catholics rather than like Protestants, and therefore the text commending them cannot be commending them for Sola Scriptura, so the text cannot be used as a proof-text for Sola Scriptura. I pointed this out with regard to some other texts appealed to in the commentary above.
Let me end by referring you to a wonderful little fictional dialogue written by Jason Stewart, a former OPC pastor who came into full communion with the Catholic Church in 2011. Stewart imaginatively considers what it might have been like if Christians were actually practicing Sola Scriptura at the time of the Jerusalem Council discussed in Acts 15. The results are very illuminating both in terms of examining Sola Scriptura as well as in terms of understanding Protestant objections to various developments of doctrine put forward by the Catholic Church over the millennia.
ADDENDUM 2/16/16: Here, here, and here are a couple of good, short, succinct articles asking some tough questions of Sola Scriptura. Sometimes Protestants (like Keith Mathison) protest that Sola Scriptura has been misunderstood, and that it doesn't involve reliance on individual private interpretation over and above everything else. Here is a great article responding to that, and here is another article related to that topic.
ADDENDUM 5/3/16: Here is another article I've recently written pointing out how Sola Scriptura proponents often don't like it when the full practical and logical implications of the doctrine are spelled out too bluntly or acted upon too consistently.
ADDENDUM 8/20/16: Ken Hensley has written up some nice critiques of Sola Scriptura in a series of articles that can be found here. Look for the "Why I'm Catholic: Sola Scriptura . . ." titles.
No comments:
Post a Comment