Charles Hodge on Doctrinal Development

In the section quoted below from Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology, Vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1940), pp.116-117 (in the Hendrickson 2003 reprint), taken from the plain text version on the website of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Hodge articulates a view of the development of Christian doctrine very similar to that described by St. Vincent of Lerins (in chapter 23 of his Commonotory) and much later by Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.  Of course, Hodge is approaching the subject from a Protestant point of view, and so there is no indication of any infallible guidance provided by the Holy Spirit in the church's development of doctrine, but his description of how doctrine develops is very helpful for showing how a state of developed doctrine in the church might look similar to and yet different from a less developed earlier state, much as an embryo looks different from the adult form.  Not all changes are unwarranted innovations!

Obviously, Catholics will disagree with Hodge's attempt to portray the Protestant doctrine of Justification as a warranted development of biblical doctrine, but it is interesting to see how Hodge makes use of the concept of doctrinal development in the church to justify a theological position that was never clearly articulated before Luther.  Ultimately, while we can examine the specific evidence for ourselves with regard to any claimed developed doctrine, Catholics acknowledge that we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the church to fully and accurately ascertain the correct developments of doctrine and distinguish them from false distortions or innovations.  Because they do not defer to such infallible guidance from the Spirit upon the church, Protestants' developments of doctrine are necessarily to some degree arbitrary and without adequate warrant.

I might also add that a correct understanding of the development of doctrine helps in answering Eastern Orthodox arguments against alleged Catholic "innovations" in doctrine and practice.  The Eastern Orthodox accusations here tend to be very subjective, because they rely on their own personal judgment (their own personal readings of and inferences from Scripture, the Fathers, etc.) to determine what is a legitimate development and what is an innovation without adequately recognizing the importance of looking to God's guidance of the church in drawing this line, despite their general acknowledgement in other areas of the need for such guidance.  They beg the question against the Catholic Church by assuming they can clearly delineate which Catholic positions are innovations and which are warranted developments as a means of determining whether God has guided the Eastern Orthodox Churches or the Catholic Church, instead of recognizing that one must decide which is the church that is guided by God before one tries to draw that line in order to be able to make use of reliance on God's guidance of the church's tradition in the drawing of the line.  To get these in the wrong order requires one to approach the drawing of the line by means of one's own personal evaluations without the authoritative guidance of the church, much (ironically) as Protestants try to do.

All Protestants admit that there has been, in one sense, an uninterrupted development of theology in the Church, from the apostolic age to the present time. All the facts, truths, doctrines, and principles, which enter into Christian theology, are in the Bible. They are there as fully and is clearly at one time as at another; at the beginning as they are now. No addition has been made to their number, and no new explanation has been afforded of their nature or relations. The same is true of the facts of nature. They are now what they have been from the beginning. They are, however, far better known, and more clearly understood now than they were a thousand years ago. The mechanism of the heavens was the same in the days of Pythagoras as it was in those of La Place; and yet the astronomy of the latter was immeasurably in advance of that of the former. The change was effected by a continual and gradual progress. The same progress has taken place in theological knowledge. Every believer is conscious of such progress in his own experience. When he was a child, he thought as a child. As he grew in years, he grew in knowledge of the Bible. He increased not only in the compass, but in the clearness, order, and harmony of his knowledge. This is just as true of the Church collectively as of the individual Christian. It is, in the first place, natural, if not inevitable, that it should be so. The Bible, although so clear and simple in its teaching, that he who runs may read and learn enough to secure his salvation, is still full of the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God; full of ta bathe tou theou, the profoundest truths concerning all the great problems which have taxed the intellect of man from the beginning. These truths are not systematically stated, but scattered, so to speak, promiscuously over the sacred pages, just as the facts of science are scattered over the face of nature, or hidden in its depths. Every man knows that there is unspeakably more in the Bible than he has yet learned, as every man of science knows that there is unspeakably more in nature than he has yet discovered, or understands. It stands to reason that such a book, being the subject of devout and laborious study, century after century, by able and faithful men, should come to be better and better understood. And as in matters of science, although one false theory after another, founded on wrong principles or on an imperfect induction of facts, has passed away, yet real progress is made, and the ground once gained is never lost, so we should naturally expect it to be with the study of the Bible. False views, false inferences, misapprehensions, ignoring of some facts, and misinterpretations, might be expected to come and go, in endless succession, but nevertheless a steady progress in the knowledge of what the Bible teaches be accomplished. And we might also expect that here, too, the ground once surely gained would not again be lost.

But, in the second place, what is thus natural and reasonable in itself is a patent historical fact. The Church has thus advanced in theological knowledge. The difference between the confused and discordant representations of the early fathers on all subjects connected with the doctrines of the Trinity and of the person of Christ, and the clearness, precision, and consistency of the views presented after ages of discussion, and the statement of these doctrines by the Councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople, is as great almost as between chaos and cosmos. And this ground has never been lost. The same is true with regard to the doctrines of sin and grace. Before the long-continued discussion of these subjects in the Augustinian period, the greatest confusion and contradiction prevailed in the teachings of the leaders of the Church; during those discussions the views of the Church became clear and settled. There is scarcely a principle or doctrine concerning the fall of man, the nature of sin and guilt, inability, the necessity of the Spirits influence, etc., etc., which now enters into the faith of evangelical Christians, which was not then clearly stated and authoritatively sanctioned by the Church. In like manner, before the Reformation, similar confusion existed with regard to the great doctrine of justification. No clear line of discrimination was drawn between it and sanctification. Indeed, during the Middle Ages, and among the most devout of the schoolmen, the idea of guilt was merged in the general idea of sin, and sin regarded as merely moral defilement. The great object was to secure holiness. Then pardon would come of course. The apostolic, Pauline, deeply Scriptural doctrine, that there can be no holiness until sin be expiated, that pardon, justification, and reconciliation, must precede sanctification, was never clearly apprehended. This was the grand lesson which the Church learned at the Reformation, and which it has never since forgot. It is true then, as an historical fact, that the Church has advanced. It understands the great doctrines of theology, anthropology, and soteriology, far better now, than they were understood in the early post-apostolic age of the Church.

UPDATE 7/23/15:  Here is an article from an Eastern Orthodox writer also giving a good description of the how the church has developed through the ages, and so doesn't look exactly as she did before but yet retains continuity with what she was before.

The Augustinian and the Protestant Doctrines of Justification Compared and Contrasted: A Paper from 2001

The text below is a paper I wrote way back in 2001, 14 years ago.  I've described the historical context here:

In 2000 or 2001, I came to hold what I called an "Augustinian" doctrine of justification and to oppose what I considered the classic "Protestant" doctrine.  Mostly, this had to do with the question of imputation vs. infusion with regard to the righteousness of Christ.  I felt concerned that the Protestant doctrine of justification too much separated imputation from infusion, insisting that we are right with God wholly by means of the imputation of Christ's righteousness apart from the infusion of Christ's righteousness that constitutes regeneration and sanctification.  I held, rather, that it is both the imputation of righteousness and its infusion and effects in us that makes us right with God.  Until Summer of 2003, I felt myself to be at odds with the Protestant position on these matters.  This was resolved when I came to see that I could reasonably interpret the Protestant doctrine and language in such a way as to avoid this conflict.  This is a large subject, and I won't go into details here, but suffice it to say that I felt reconciled with the Protestant position after the Summer of 2003. . . . 

My commitment to an "Augustinian" view of justification has been justified (no pun intended), as this is the form of the doctrine in the Catholic tradition.  But my attempts to see my views as in harmony with the Protestant view has given me a helpful awareness that will serve well as I continue to work to help Catholics and Protestants understand each other better.

Since this document was written when I was a Protestant, not everything in it is necessarily in conformity with Catholic doctrine, and I don't necessarily vouch for every detail of it.  But I have left it as it was when I wrote it without changes (except for the addition of section headings and changing some of the biblical references to KJV) in order to preserve it as a testimony to my views on this subject back in 2001.

The Augustinian and the Protestant Doctrines of Justification Compared and Contrasted

“By [the guilt of reatus poenae] is meant desert of punishment, or obligation to render satisfaction to God’s justice for self-determined violation of the law.  Guilt in this sense is not of the essence of sin, but is rather a relation to the penal sanction of the law.  If there had been no sanction attached to the disregard of moral relations, every departure from the law would have been sin, but would not have involved liability to punishment.”

- Louis Berkhof

“In the last analysis sin is always against God, and the essence of sin is to be against God.  The person who is against God cannot be right with God.  For if we are against God then God is against us.  It could not be otherwise.  God cannot be indifferent to or complacent towards that which is the contradiction of himself.  His very perfection requires the recoil of righteous indignation.  And that is God’s wrath.”

- John Murray

The Augustinian and Protestant doctrines of sin and salvation are, on the whole, very similar.  Both Augustinians and Protestants agree that, ever since the Fall, mankind has been dead in sin and in rebellion against God.  Both agree that man is sinful by nature, and that there is nothing man can do to even in the slightest degree initiate a return to God and to righteousness, and both agree that this inability in no way lessens the culpability of man in sin.  Both hold a compatibilist notion of the will and a belief in the absolute sovereignty of God, over against Arminian and Pelagian systems of theology.  Both hold that only God, by grace alone, can free a sinner from bondage to sin and convert him to Christ by effectual grace through Christ’s atonement.  Both agree that there is nothing man can do to merit God’s favor or the grace of salvation, and that God gives his special saving grace only to those he has unconditionally elected and passes by those he has unconditionally reprobated.  And both agree that because of all of this, all the glory and credit for salvation and eternal life go to God and to God alone.

Where Augustinians and Protestants differ is in their understanding of the relationship between the guilt of sin and the power and presence of sin, and the relationship between the righteousness of justification and the holiness of sanctification.  Protestants hold that, in the process of justification, the guilt of sin is removed but not the power and the presence of sin.  These are removed in a different (though necessarily connected and inseparable) process of sanctification.  The righteousness of justification, which is the righteousness that provides us with acceptable merit before God, is held to be imputed but not imparted.  That is, it is not a righteousness given to us internally but is one given to us legally.  It involves a change in our legal status, but not in our nature.  The righteousness of sanctification is imparted and involves a change of nature, but it is not the grounds of our meritorious acceptance before God, because it is imperfect in this life and because even if it were perfect, it could not outweigh the debt of sin.  It would leave us under the wrath of God.  Augustinians, on the other hand, hold that the guilt of sin and the power and presence of sin are not distinct things which can be separated, but are all necessary characteristics of a sinful disposition which exists in us internally.  Likewise, Augustinians do not believe that having a righteous disposition and having a righteous status before God are two different things which can be separated, but that they are necessary characteristics of a righteous disposition which exists in the justified internally.  So for Augustinians, justification and sanctification are not two processes, but are one; and the righteousness of justification is, therefore, an imparted righteousness (though of course it is also imputed, since it is Christ’s righteousness intrinsically and not ours, and becomes ours only by being undeservedly given to us as a free gift, and because justification, for Augustinians as well as for Protestants, involves God’s legal declaration of the righteous state of the believer).

So the questions before us in our examination of the Augustinian and the Protestant doctrines of justification are these: 1. Is the guilt of sin so connected to the presence of sin that you cannot have the presence of sin without guilt or guilt without the presence of sin?  2. Is a righteous status before God so connected with an internal righteous disposition that you cannot have a righteous status without an internal righteous disposition or an internal righteous disposition without a righteous status before God?  As you can see, these two questions ultimately resolve into one, since you cannot answer the first question one way and the second another without a contradiction.  It is their different answers to these questions, and whatever implications flow from their answers, which constitute the difference between the Augustinian and the Protestant doctrines of justification.  I would like to argue that it is the Augustinian doctrine and not the Protestant doctrine which finds the support of both Scripture and reason.

My intention is to be very concise (though I hope thorough) in my examination of Scripture, so I am going to simply assume that my reader knows the texts and has them before him as I discuss them.

A Look at Scripture

In my examination of Scripture, I want to look first at the Book of Romans, since it is here that the most systematic description of sin and salvation are given.  Augustinians and Protestants agree, for the most part, on their interpretations of Romans 1-3:20, where Paul deals with the sinfulness of all mankind.  (One disagreement might come in chapter 2, however.  Paul says that everyone will be judged according to their deeds, evil to evil and good to good, and that “the doers of the law will be justified” (2:13).  Some Protestants suggest this is merely hypothetical.  If a person could be good, he would be rewarded in this way.  However, there is no evidence that this is hypothetical, and there is evidence that it is not.  Paul is not speaking hypothetically, as if there were no gospel, because in verse 16, he speaks of judgment as being by Christ, according to the gospel.  In  verse 29, he relates the fulfilling of the law to the Spirit and the circumcision of the heart, showing that the whole discussion in chapter two is speaking realistically, taking into account the truths of the gospel.  This would imply that, through the Spirit, one becomes a doer of the law and so is justified, obviously indicating an internal righteousness as the basis for justification.)

One of our big questions, however, comes up in their interpretations of 3:21-5:21.  It is clear from what Paul says that no one can be saved by his own righteousness, but that he must receive a righteousness coming from outside of himself as a gift of grace through the propitiation of Christ, which enables him to be forgiven of his sins and received into favor with God.  It is clear that this righteousness cannot be earned but must be received through faith alone.  It is also clear, I might add, that the “works of the law” which can’t save us are not merely ceremonial works but are moral works as well.  The question raised in these chapters is, Is the righteousness which believers receive through faith alone only a change in status, or is it a righteousness that exists inside us as an internal sanctification?  The arguments raised by Protestants against the latter option do not seem convincing to me.  Protestants argue that, because the atonement which provides the righteousness by which we are forgiven of our sins is a propitiation, that it must refer to a change in status, since the propitiatory sacrifices of the Old Testament did not change the nature of the one offering but merely removed his guilt.  I would argue, on the other hand, that, for one thing, the propitiatory sacrifices of the Old Testament changed neither the nature of the offerer nor his status; they didn’t change anything, because they were not the real cleansing of sin but were only types of the real sacrifice to come.  The Protestant argument would prove too much even for Protestants - The Old Testament sacrifices did not change the nature of the offerer, therefore Christ’s sacrifice does not change the nature of one to whom it is applied.  But Protestants do believe that Christ’s sacrifice changes the natures of those to whom it is applied; they just don’t believe that the process of justification refers specifically to this change.  In the Old Testament, there is a promise of the removal of the guilt of God’s people through the sacrifice of the coming Messiah, and there is also the promise that one day God would circumcise the hearts of his people (in other words, change their natures), so that they would become internally righteous.  Both elements are fulfilled in Christ’s atoning sacrifice.

Another Protestant argument raised against the same “latter option” is that the description of how justification works in Romans 4:1-25 using the example of Abraham implies an imputed rather than an imparted righteousness.  Does it not explicitly say that Abraham’s faith, not his works, was reckoned (imputed) to him as righteousness?  And doesn’t David’s quote show that this justification is not the absence of sin in our lives, but the covering and forgiving, or the “blotting out”, of sin that is present?  Does David not say that it is because God does not “take into account” our sin, and not because there is no sin to take into account, that we are acceptable to God?  First of all, I would answer that the text does say that Abraham was justified by faith rather than by works.  But this is saying nothing more than what is agreed upon by both Augustinians and Protestants, that we must turn from trust in our own works to a trust in God’s work in Christ.  Abraham had faith, and on account of his faith, Christ’s righteousness, worked out in the atonement, became accounted his.  The idea of righteousness being counted to Abraham here probably means that Christ’s righteousness came to belong to him on account of faith; it is an issue of ownership.  The phrase may also imply the fact that through faith, Abraham gained the declaration of righteousness before God the Judge, because through faith he gained the righteousness which warranted that declaration.  The text doesn’t specify, however, whether this righteousness we receive through faith is only a legal status or whether it is the production of an internal change as well.  It just says that Abraham was not justified by his own works but by God’s righteousness in Christ received through faith.  If it is argued that this righteousness was received before Abraham was sanctified and that it therefore must be a different thing from sanctification, I answer that the gift of faith is a part of sanctification and that the Bible elsewhere does not allow justification to exist without sanctification, which is something that Protestants agree with, and so if Abraham had faith, he must have been regenerate (which is the beginning of sanctification).  David’s quote is also ambiguous as to whether the righteousness received was external or internal.  He says that the man’s “lawless deeds have been forgiven,” and his “sins have been covered,” but it does not specify how this occurred, and so it could be read in either a Protestant or an Augustinian way.  Protestants would say that the man’s sins have been covered by their external non-imputation, which allows him to be forgiven.  Augustinians would say that the man’s sins have been covered by being internally removed, allowing the man to be forgiven.  In both cases, the man’s sin is not “taken into account” (or imputed) because it has been in some way removed.  The question not answered by this text is how it was removed.  (The idea of “taken into account” here may also refer to the fact that, in deciding to save us, God decides not to give us the punishment due to our sins.)  To sum up, I do not believe that Paul gives us enough information to clearly decide one way or another on the Augustinian-Protestant issue in 3:21-5:21.  I believe this is because he wishes to focus in this section on the fact that it is not our righteousness but Christ’s which justifies us.  It is not until chapter 6 that he shifts focus to the effect God’s salvation has within us.

In chapter 6, verse 1, Paul begins to deal directly with the issue of how works fit into the salvation scheme.  Paul’s imaginary debating partner (one of his favorite rhetorical devices) asks, “Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?”  If our sin causes grace to increase, then why not go on sinning so as to get more grace?  Paul answer to this objection is basically, “May it never be!  How shall we who have died to sin still live in it?”  In Paul’s mind, there is something logically contradictory about the objector’s question.  The objector paints a picture of people who have died to sin (are no longer under its condemnation) but are still living in it (are still themselves personally characterized by sin in their lives).  Why does Paul find such a picture to be logically contradictory?  It is because he does not think of the sin we have been freed from through forgiveness as being something different from the sin which dwells in us internally.  If these two aspects of sin are not something different but are identical, then what the objector suggests is just as absurd as suggesting that a man can be made more free from jail by having thicker bars lock him into his cell.  “Deadness to sin” or “to the law” in Paul refers to the basis of our not being condemned - 6:7: “For he who has died has been justified (i.e., acquitted) from sin”; 7:4 - but it is at the same time the renewal of our sinful nature - See the rest of chapter 6; 8:12-17, etc.

Chapter 6 continues with more statements about how our death to sin and freedom from its slavery consists of our freedom from its power internally and the new life which we live since we have died to sin in Christ and now live to God in him (see especially 6:5-11, 12-14).  Verses 12-14 and 17-19 show that the logical outworking of our death to sin is our presenting our members no longer as slaves to sin but as slaves to righteousness.  Verses 20-23 are especially interesting:  In verse 20-21, Paul says that the result of being a slave to sin is death; in verse 22, Paul says that the outcome of being a slave to righteousness, or to God, is sanctification leading to eternal life.  Verse 23 caps off Paul’s argument here: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”  Paul is saying that our internal slavery to sin (which refers to the state of our fallen nature) is what brings death, and that our internal slavery to righteousness (referring to our change of nature, or sanctification) is what brings eternal life.  Death is the punishment for sin, and eternal life is the reward for righteousness (though the righteousness which earns it is a free gift and is itself unearned by the sinner).  So Paul is linking the punishment due to us with the state of our internal nature, and the righteousness which earns eternal life with the new life we live as sanctified believers.  This is why Paul insists that we cannot live in sin and that we must be sanctified by God’s grace - because the former brings the punishment of death and the latter brings the reward of eternal life.  There is no indication here that eternal life comes as a reward for some external righteousness which we do not internally possess and which is distinguished from our internal righteousness of sanctification.  Neither is there indication that the believer can possess inward sin which deserves death but which is passed over by God on the basis of something external to the believer.  Both of these ideas are affirmed by Protestantism, but both are contradicted by Paul’s thought here.

7:4-6 confirms this conclusion.  Paul says, in verse 4, that believers have died to the Law through the body of Christ that they might be joined to Christ, who was raised from the dead.  What did this accomplish?  That we might bear fruit for God.  Continuing in 5-6, Paul explains that our sinful passions, aroused by the Law, were bearing fruit for death.  (Note, again, that the sinful state of our nature is what brings the punishment of death.)  Paul explains in verse 6 that God solved this problem by uniting us to Christ so that we serve in the newness of the Spirit rather than in the oldness of the letter.  What does this mean?  Paul gives further information in 8:3-4: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”  In other words, because of our sinful nature we could not obey the Law and were thus condemned by it (see 3:19-20), but Christ condemned sin in the flesh, taking it upon himself and destroying it, so that we who have through him been joined to the Spirit and who thus walk according to the Spirit can meet the Law’s requirements, and (see 6:22) thus receive, instead of death, eternal life.

There is absolutely no indication here that our fulfilling of the “requirements of the Law” through our union with Christ, which brings us eternal life, refers merely to an external status we receive apart from any inward righteousness.  Rather, this is contradicted by what we have already seen in chapters 6 and 7:  The righteousness which brings eternal life is identified with our “newness of life” (6:4), our being “slaves of righteousness” and “presenting our members as slaves to righteousness” (6:18,19), our “bearing fruit for God” (7:40), and our serving “in the newness of the Spirit” (7:6).  8:4 identifies those who fulfill the “requirements of the Law” with those “who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit,” implying an identity between these two things.  Continuing on, chapter 8 provides us with more evidence that the righteousness which brings us eternal life is identical with the sanctification brought to us by God’s Spirit: In verses 5-8, Paul continues to explain how our walking in the Spirit and in the flesh is related to our fulfilling the requirements of the Law:  “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.  For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”  Those who are in the flesh cannot please God, because the flesh disobeys the Law.  This is the same as what Paul said in verse 3.  Those who can please God are those who obey the Law, so redemption from guilt must consist in redemption from the flesh.  Verses 9-11 explain that those who are in Christ have the Spirit of Christ, which causes their spirits to be “alive because of righteousness.”  Paul sums up how our union with the Spirit through Christ constitutes our redemption admirably (if I may be so bold as to complement the apostle) in verses 12-17: “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.  For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. . . . The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him [see 6:4-6] that we may be also glorified together.”  Paul again makes it clear that the flesh, and living in the flesh, brings death, and that it is our putting to death the deeds of the flesh through the Spirit which brings life.  The Law’s obligations upon us have not changed - we must still fulfill them.  What has changed is that we are now made able to fulfill the Law by being freed from our sinful nature (the flesh) and given a new, sanctified life through our union with Christ in the Spirit which lives in holiness and righteousness.

There are many other confirmations that I have outlined Paul’s doctrine correctly from other parts of the Pauline writings as well as from other scriptures.  (For the sake of time and brevity, however, I will not quote all of these passages but will only mention and discuss some of them.  Please look them up if possible for the full effect of my argument.)  One of the most powerful indications of this doctrine, I believe, comes from the enormous amount of moral warning and instruction given us in the Scriptures.  It is difficult to see, under the Protestant doctrine of justification, where the importance of the internal righteousness of believers lies, since God’s wrath is held to be abated and he is held to be completely satisfied with an imputed righteousness which has nothing to do with the inward state of the believer.  Not only this, but a large number of the passages which exhort believes to morality and warn them against immorality make a clear identification between inward sin and divine wrath and between inward holiness and God’s acceptance of the believer.  Ephesians 5: 5-10 explains that no immoral person will inherit the kingdom of God, because it is “because of these things that the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.”  Now believers are to “walk as children of the light,” learning “what is pleasing to the Lord.”  Colossians 1:21-22 says, “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:”  This idea of the Church being sanctified through Christ to be “blameless” also occurs in Ephesians 5:25-27.  1 Thessalonians 3:11-13 and 5:21-23 explain more explicitly, though it was already clear in the Colossians and Ephesians passages, that the “blamelessness” the Church will have at the coming of Christ is an internal righteousness. Philippians 1:9-11 is even clearer.

Titus 2:11-14 and 3:3-8 are a couple of the most astounding passages clearly pointing toward an Augustinian understanding of justification.  They also relate clearly the relationship between our not boasting and yet our being made internally righteous.  2:14 says that Christ “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”  God’s finding us acceptable here is connected with our being “purified from every lawless deed” and being “zealous for good deeds.”  These things are what make us beautiful to God, which implies he is not simply satisfied with an outward status.  3:3-8 gets even clearer.  We are saved not on the basis of our own righteous works, but according to his mercy.  How?  “By the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” We are saved by our sanctification (regeneration being synonymous with sanctification here), and this process is spoken of as how we are “justified by his grace.”  The very word justified is used here, in a Pauline passage, to refer to our inward sanctification.  Paul explains in verse 8 that this doctrine should cause believers to “be careful to engage in good deeds.”  It is no mystery why this would be the case.

I Corinthians 6:9-11 parallels the above passages from Titus: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”  Clearly, not inheriting the kingdom of God is a moral affair.  And so is inheriting the kingdom of God:  “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”  Again, the word justified is used in a Pauline passage synonymously with inward sanctification: Clearly the phrase, “such were some of you,” indicates that this washing which allows believers to avoid being rejected from the kingdom of God because of immorality is an inward cleansing which causes them not to be immoral anymore, and this is why they are now morally acceptable to God and thus can inherit his kingdom.

The Book of Galatians presents us with some interesting passages pointing toward Augustinianism.  3:2 describes “receiving the Spirit” as the effect of faith, and his criticism of the Galatians (3:3) is that they, who began in the Spirit, and seeking to be completed in the flesh.  4:3-7 speaks of how the Son has come to free us from being in bondage to the “elemental things of the world,” and to give us the “adoption as sons.”  V.6: “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba!  Father!’” The language in these passages parallels the Romans passages we looked at earlier, where having the Spirit of Christ and having a mind “set on the Spirit” is the substance of what Christ’s atonement has brought to believers and is what provides their righteousness.  3:21-22 and 26-27 use interesting language also, paralleling the Romans discussion: “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.  But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe” (v.21-22).  We see here that the subject is how the righteousness which gains us the promise of being Abraham’s heirs comes through faith and not through the Law.  How does this work?  “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.  For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”  V.29: “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.”  It is being clothed with Christ through the Spirit (see 3:2-3 and 4:3-7) which brings us the righteousness (3:21-22) which makes us heirs according to the promise.  Further evidence that Paul believes we can fulfill the law occurs in 5:13-26.  Paul exhorts the Galatians to serve one another through love, “for all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”.  They are to serve in love in order to fulfill the law.  5:19-22 continues Paul’s line of thought by contrasting two lifestyles, a life characterized by the “works of the flesh” and a life characterized by the “fruit of the Spirit.”  Paul says that people who live immorally will not inherit the kingdom of God.  But those who live in the fruit of the Spirit will do so, because “against such things there is no law” (5:23).  They are not breaking the law by living so, therefore the law doesn’t condemn them.  They are living according to the law.  They have, as Paul says, “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (5:24).  In 6:7-9, Paul confirms again that it is the state of our lives that brings us either condemnation or reward.  He says that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.  And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.”  We reap what we sow - evil to evil, good to good.  But the good is the fruit of the Spirit and not of our own ability.  (Compare this section with the earlier discussion on Romans 6 and with Romans 2.)  In 6:14-15, Paul concludes his discussion:  “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.”  Note again how Paul’s being crucified to the world (compare with “died to sin” in Romans 6:2) involves an inward transformation.  Also note that Paul contrasts the concern over circumcision with being a “new creation”.  The circumcision debate in Galatians and Romans revolves around the issue of justification by works or by faith, but here the way of works is contrasted with becoming a new creation, which is regeneration.

An Augustinian view of justification can explain James 2:21-25.  James says not only that works are necessary, but that we are justified by works as well as by faith.  What does he mean?  As best as I can recall, every Protestant theologian I have heard discuss this claims that James is speaking of justification before men, or showing that we have faith to men, and Paul is speaking of justification before God, or that which is objectively the real ground of justification.  But there is nothing in the context of James to suggest this in the slightest.  There is no evidence that James is talking about a different meaning of ‘justification.’  In fact, he links his discussion to Paul’s by saying that Abraham’s being justified by works is the fulfillment of the passages, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”  And James concludes, “And he was called the friend of God.”  This justification is between Abraham and God, and the quote of the passage from Genesis shows that James is speaking of the same thing Paul is in his letters.  But doesn’t Paul speak of justification by faith alone, and doesn’t James say it is not by faith alone, but by works as well?  Yes.  But it is clear that what Paul means is that we are not justified by our works as coming from us, but rather by receiving the Spirit through faith in Christ who produces the needed righteousness and works within us.  James is talking about the works which are the fruit of the Spirit here when he says that we are justified by works.  A statement putting both Paul and James together would be, “We are justified not by our own works produced from us, but by those works produced in us by our receiving the Spirit through faith in Christ.”  This is why James says that “as a result of the works, faith was perfected (or completed)” (2:22).  Paul is saying the same thing in Galatians 5:6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing, but faith working through love.”  Faith works by producing love in us, and love is the fullness of good works and the fulfillment of the demands of the Law (see 5:14).  Thus, faith justifies.

See also 1 Peter 2:4-5, 2 Peter 1:4-11, 1 Peter 4:17-18, 1 John 3:5-9, 3:15, 4:16-18, 5:18-19, Matthew 25: 31-46, 12:36-37, 18:35, Philippians 2:12-13, etc.

Also, the repeated biblical claim that we will be judged according to our works does not fit a Protestant doctrine of justification.  Protestantism has never been able to explain how we will judged and rewarded according to our works (in other words, justified according to our works - see Matthew 12:36-27 and Romans 2:5-13, as well as countless other passages about judgement) if our works form no part of the basis of our justification.  Augustinians have never had a problem reconciling the fact that we are justified by faith alone with the fact that we are to be truly judged according to our works.  We will be judged according to our works, but our works are the gift of God which comes through faith in Christ and not from our own efforts.  See Ephesians 2:8-10.  The Protestant idea of being judged according to our works by a “gratuitous estimate” is pushing the limits of valid exegesis, to put it mildly.  According to Protestants, our works merit nothing truly, but they are judged by a gratuitous estimate as if they merited everything.  This is the same as if I were to call a black wall white by a “gratuitous estimate.”  At that point, I’m not really talking about the wall at all.  Similarly, if our record is judged as if it were the opposite of what it is by a “gratuitous estimate,” then it is not truly our record which is being judged at all, contrary to Scripture’s insistence that it is.

Responses to Biblical and Philosophical Objections to Augustinianism

Having examined a substantial amount of biblical evidence, I now want to answer some biblical and philosophical objections to the Augustinian position.  I will start by responding to Hebrews 10:14, which says, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”  This seems to be interpreted by Protestants to imply a distinction between justification and sanctification: “We have been justified completely, but we are being sanctified now, and it is not completed yet.”  However, I see no justification (pardon the pun) for this distinction in the words of the passage.  I would interpret it to mean, “Jesus is applying to believers now the effects of the offering he once for all completed in the past.”  He “perfected” us in the past when he offered himself up as a sacrifice, but his perfecting of us is not applied to us until later, for some of us 2,000 years later.  But the salvation which is being applied to us now was purchased and accomplished for us a long time ago, at the cross.  There is nothing in this passage which requires a Protestant idea of justification.  Taken in the Protestant interpretation, it would even possibly seem to imply that those who did not exist at the time of the writing of Hebrews were already justified because he has perfected all who are sanctified.

Another major biblical objection has to do with the claim that justification is completed in the past, but that sanctification isn’t, and so the Bible must be referring to two different things.  However, sanctification is also usually spoken of as having taken place in the past (see Romans 6:2, 6:11, 6:15-22, 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 John 3:4-10, etc.).  And justification is sometimes spoken of as future (see Romans 2:5-13, Ephesians 5:25-27, 1 Thessalonians 3:11-13, 5:21-23, Philippians 1:9-11, 3:9-14, etc.).  Besides, saying that justification is spoken of as past and that sanctification is spoken of as present and future begs the question, since it assumes that they are two different things already.

One of the major biblical objections Protestants make to Augustinianism is that justification in the Bible is purely forensic - that is, the word means “to declare righteous” rather than “to make righteous” and that justification therefore doesn’t do anything in us; it simply pronounces a verdict.  My response to that is that I agree that the term justification is usually forensic and has the idea of “declare righteous” in Romans and Galatians.  But this is irrelevant.  The basic root idea of “justify” may be simply to pass a verdict, but both Protestants and Augustinians know that more is going on than this in the justification of the ungodly.  God cannot simply call an unrighteous person righteous.  He cannot justify the ungodly in that sense, as passages in the Old Testament make explicitly clear.  Somehow, the unrighteous person must be made righteous before they can be accepted as righteous.  The only people who deny this are the Socinians, the New England theologians, and those of a similar stripe.  So, while the root idea of justification refers to a verdict and not to a change, the doctrine of justification in Romans and Galatians includes a transfer of righteousness as well as a verdict.  The question in the doctrine of justification is, “How can I, an unrighteous person, gain the righteousness necessary to be justified (declared righteous) in God’s sight?”  This entire process is bound up in the question, “How can I be justified?”  The difference between Protestants and Augustinians is not that one side thinks that justification is purely forensic and declaratory and the other side makes it constitutive.  Both sides agree that it is constitutive as well as forensic, because both sides believe that one must actually become righteous somehow to be declared righteous  The difference is that Protestants think that the constitutive element is external and Augustinians think it involves internal change.

Philippians 3:4-14 is often used by Protestants as a text showing a Protestant doctrine of justification.  However, upon examination, we see something different.  In vs. 7-9, Paul speaks of wanting to have a righteousness not “which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”  We are clearly talking about justification here.  Paul continues in vs. 10-11, further elaborating on the righteousness which comes by faith and not from the Law: “. . . That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.”  Wait a minute.  This sounds like Romans 6 language, which is talking about sanctification!  Paul goes on (vs. 12-14): “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.  Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”  Paul has not yet been completed in his sanctification.  But this whole discussion of sanctification came as an elaboration on being found in Christ with a righteousness through faith and not through the Law.  This passage links together and identifies Paul’s doctrine of justification and his doctrine of sanctification, once again showing them to be one and the same thing.  We are justified by our sanctification.

Our examination of this passage from Philippians brings out another important clarification of the Augustinian doctrine which will answer some of the concerns of Protestants.  My wife Desireé had a hard time swallowing the Augustinian doctrine for a long time, because she thought that it implied a need for perfection now in order to be pleasing to God.  She was afraid (rightly so) that she is as yet not sufficiently sanctified to please God sufficiently.  What got her over that hump was to realize that the biblical doctrine does not teach that we are adequate fully now, or that we will be in this life.  What it teaches is that our justification is, in Francis Schaeffer's words (though he was not speaking of justification), “not perfect, but substantial.”  We have been sanctified, and we thus please God.  We are being sanctified, and thus we are being conformed to Christ, becoming more and more pleasing to God.  And we will be sanctified: We will someday be free of the flesh entirely and be perfected, standing “blameless” before the judgement seat of God.  We have the first fruits now, but we groan inwardly, waiting for “the hope of righteousness,” but confident, knowing that “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil 1:60).  He died for us and chose us while we were wholly sinners, with no good in us at all.  He will not now abandon us because of remaining imperfections, however ugly, but he will complete what he has begun until we are perfectly pleasing to him.

Another philosophical objection to Augustinianism from Protestants is that it implies that we truly merit eternal life by our own holiness, giving us a ground for boasting, while Scripture tells us to boast only in the Lord.  However, this is not the case.  It is true that in Augustinianism, our inward holiness merits (or will merit when it is completed) eternal life.  However, this inward holiness did not come from us but rather is a gift from God through the atonement of Christ, and thus it is ultimately to God’s credit and not to ours.  As Paul says in 1 Cor 15:10-11, “But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.”  Other similar passages could be cited.  Paul is saying that his great working is not ultimately to his credit but to God’s, because the working is from God and not from him.  As Phil 2:12-13 says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.  For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”  Imagine that you have a bank account (this probably does not take much imagination).  A friend of yours gives you a gift of $1,000.  This money is deposited in you bank account.  Then you go out and buy a new computer with this money.  Now, whose money bought the computer?  Well, it is your money, it is in your bank account, and you really possess it in the same way you possess any other money you have.  You have the money, so you were able to buy the computer.  But in a deeper sense, you are grateful to your friend for the buying of the computer and you do not boast in it yourself, because you did not earn the money, rather it was a gift to you from someone else.  You may have it, but it did not come from you.  So in the deepest sense, it is not your money but your friend’s and you possess it as a gift.  And the computer you bought is also, in the deepest sense, the gift of your friend.  Similarly, our righteousness as Christians we may possess inwardly.  We may really and truly possess righteousness which earns eternal life.  But this righteousness did not come from us, but was rather a free, undeserved gift from someone else, and thus in the deepest sense, it is not ours but Christ’s, and we rely on him for it and give him the credit for it, and thus we give him the credit for all that is “bought” with it as well, namely, eternal life.

Protestants also object that Augustinians destroy the gospel of free, gratuitous forgiveness.  The objection goes something like this: “We Protestants say that, in spite of all the sin in us, we are truly accepted by God because Christ paid for our sins.  Thus, we believe that we are accepted as sinners, deserving only of God’s wrath, because we have been freely forgiven in Christ.  You Augustinians say that we are forgiven of our sins because they are purged from us in the process of sanctification.  So God does not accept us as sinners, but only because we truly deserve his pardon.  Thus, you destroy free, undeserved forgiveness.”  I find this objection interesting, because it gives further evidence (see discussion of justification being forensic above for another example) that Protestants tend, I think, to slip into Socinian ways of thinking when they attack Augustinianism.  One of Socinus’s objections to both Catholic and Reformational theology was that there is no true forgiveness.  In both Protestantism and Catholicism, sin has to be removed or paid for in some way before God accepts us.  The Socinians argued that there was no need for a substitutionary atonement, because God truly forgives and accepts us as sinners.  In other words, he doesn’t remove our sins; he simply decides to overlook them and to accept us anyway.  Both Protestants and Catholics responded that forgiveness cannot be free in the Socinian sense, or God’s justice would be destroyed.  There must be some meritorious foundation for our forgiveness and acceptance, and that foundation is the substitutionary atonement of Christ.  What Protestants and Catholics disagreed upon was how Christ’s merit is appropriated by the sinner, externally or internally.  So this Protestant objection against Augustinianism is against Protestantism just as much as it is against Augustinianism.  In both doctrines, God does not in a sense give us what we don’t deserve or not give us what we do deserve.  Rather, we receive that which deserves God’s acceptance - the removal of our sin and righteousness - as an undeserved gift through Christ.

A related objection is that Augustinianism lets sinners off the hook too easily - without a satisfaction for sin.  The Bible says that we deserve punishment if we sin, but Augustinians say that we can get off the hook simply by being regenerated.  This ignores the requirement that our sins be punished and the just penalty of the law satisfied.  My answer is that Augustinians do recognize that there must be a death in order for sin to be abolished.  We do believe in satisfaction for sin.  But, as we have already noted, Augustinians believe that our transformation from sin to righteousness happens to us internally.  Christ made a satisfaction for our sin, and his satisfaction is given to us in both Augustinianism and Protestantism.  But in Augustinianism, this satisfaction is applied internally and is identical with our death to sin.  As Paul puts it, we have been “crucified with Christ” (Galatians 2:20).  We have died to sin with him so that we might rise to God and righteousness with him (Romans 6:1-14).  His death to sin is worked out in us as we “suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together” (Romans 8:17).  “For he who has died has been justified from sin” (Romans 6:7).  Augustinians do not let sinners off the hook.  Satisfaction is required.  We must die in order to live.  This is fulfilled in the mortification, the crucifixion, of the old man, leading to the birth of the new creation.

Philosophical Objections against Protestantism

Augustinians have some philosophical objections of their own against Protestantism, in addition to the biblical ones discussed earlier.  One is that Protestants mix their metaphors in arguing for their doctrine.  Protestants believe that righteousness can be received and possessed in an external way that does not relate to our inward character.  The bank account image is often used.  We have righteousness in our “account” without being righteousness inwardly.  But this is to confuse righteousness with something like money.  Righteousness is not a commodity that can exist independently from character.  To possess righteousness can only mean to have a righteous character.  To be righteous means essentially to have a morally pure and beautiful heart, one that loves God and its neighbor.  For God to judge someone as righteous is for him to see within that person a moral purity.  For God to judge someone as guilty he must see within that person moral wickedness.  This why love is said to be the fulfillment of the law in Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10, and elsewhere.  It might be objected that righteousness and guilt can also be possessed as records, as in the law courts.  Someone may have committed murder ten years ago, and perhaps they do not have the heart to murder now, but that does not let them off the hook of paying for what they did.  I would argue, however, that this fact is a symptom of the finiteness of our law courts.  What is the difference between a crime and a natural disaster?  Let’s say a house has been torn apart.  It is not in the destructiveness of the act that the distinction lies, for tornadoes are just as destructive as people (and usually more so).  What makes the distinction is what caused the disaster.  It is a crime if it is the product of a morally wicked heart.  It is a natural disaster if it is the product of a non-moral act.  The crime evidences a morally wicked heart, and it is the moral wickedness of the heart which is sought out and punished by the law courts.  The finiteness of the law courts is manifest in a few ways: 1. The law courts do not punish morally wicked hearts all the time, but only when they evidence themselves in evil acts which are recognized as evil.  The law courts do not punish hatred, for example, or a desire which could lead to murder, but they simply punish someone for the act of murder, or at the most attempted murder.  This distinction between what the heart is and what it does is due to finiteness.  God judges us because we have wicked characters.  Our acts are not an addition to our inward wickedness but only express it.  2.  A law court might condemn a changed man, that is, one who would no longer be the sort to commit the crime.  This is because the law cannot work with the inward heart but only with the outward act, as mentioned above.  The law courts only know that this guy standing before them is linked with the guy who committed the murder, and thus they accept him as the same person and take out their judgement on him.  God, however, sees more deeply.  A person is guilty because he has a wicked heart or a wicked character.  If his wicked heart is removed, so is the basis for guilt.  The person has truly become a new person.  The old person was evil and therefore guilty.  The new person is holy and therefore righteous.  This is why Scripture speaks of us as being “recreated” or “new creatures” in Christ.  Note that this is true in Protestantism as well.  We are not the same persons we were before because of our change in status through Christ, and therefore our guilt is no longer imputed to us.  Once again, Augustinians differ only on suggesting that the new status is based on something inward rather than on something merely external.

To continue the point above, let me suggest that Protestants and Augustinians have two different models of what it means to be “declared righteous.”  Augustinians assert that righteousness is an inward character, so that being “declared righteous” by God is based on us actually having a morally pure character.  God is saying, “I declare you to be righteous - that is, I state outwardly that I see in you a morally beautiful character warranting my moral approbation.”  Protestants believe that being “declared righteous” by God is based not on internal character (manifested by good works) but by an external status of righteousness.  My problem with the Protestant view is, as I stated above, that righteousness simply means “internal moral beauty” and thus cannot be thought of as an external possession.  Some things are simply legal or declaratory, as in being a citizen of the United States.  Being pronounced a citizen of the United States does not change you internally.  It does not give you a new organ or a new hair color.  Rather, the entire substance of the status is declaratory.  It merely means that you will be treated in a different way by the government and by the law.  Being “declared married” is also mostly like this.  However, being “declared a human being” or being “declared dead” are not like that.  You get the status of human being because you appear to be human - you have intelligence, emotion, a body, a birth record, etc.  You get the status of being dead having something very visible actually happen to you - you die!  Righteousness and guilt are, in their fullest sense, like the latter two rather than like being a U. S. citizen.  God does not simply decide to treat us differently though we are the same.  We must be separated from our sin and become righteous.  So being declared righteous on the basis of something merely external is like being declared dead because of something external to you.  Imagine a person walking around carrying a certificate which declares that he has had the external status of “deadness” imputed to him.  He is simultaneously dead and alive - alive by physical reality but dead by external status.  “Deadness” just doesn’t work that way, and neither do guilt or righteousness.

Another objection which follows from this is that, in Protestantism, God is never really pleased with us.  He is pleased with Christ for us, but he is never pleased with us.  A friend of mine once described God’s acceptance of us by saying that Christ stands in front of us so that when God looks at us, he sees only Christ and not us, and thus our guilt does not condemn us but Christ’s righteousness is accepted for us.  I revolted then and I revolt now at this idea.  What Christ’s atonement does is not make us a way to be overlooked by God, hidden under Christ’s blood so that we in our filthiness can’t be seen, for if he were to see us, he would hate us and cast us from his presence.  Rather, Christ gets rid of our filthiness and fills us with his righteousness so that we are no longer filthy but righteous and thus we truly come to please God because of Christ.  The Protestant doctrine holds that because we have sinned, our inward righteousness is forever blemished and abhorrent to God, even when we are made perfect.  That is, all of our sanctification does not make us one bit more pleasing to God or less abhorrent to him than we are without any inward grace at all.  We still warrant nothing but God’s wrath or moral displeasure.  Picture a horribly wicked God-hater standing before God’s throne.  He smiles maliciously and spits right in God’s face.  In reaction, God smiles and says, “I love you too, good and faithful servant.”  This is the Protestant picture.  It doesn’t matter that we are sanctified as well as justified, because our sanctification does not change at all God’s moral abhorrence of us and therefore his wrath against us.  Regarded in terms of our inward righteousness, we are only “gratuitously” accepted, and as I pointed out earlier, in the Protestant meaning this is really not to be accepted at all.  Protestants react against this picture of their doctrine because Augustinian sentiments have slipped in and made inconsistent Protestant thinking.  Thus, they picture God as being pleased with our inward holiness, but say that our inward holiness is not enough because it does not meet the judicial standard of perfection which is independent from God’s own desires and delights.  They forget what John Murray pointed out in the quote at the beginning of this paper.

The mention of John Murray brings me to my last complaint against the Protestant picture.  I put two quotes at the beginning of this paper in order to bring out two different ideas about the relationship of sin to punishment.  According to Berkhof, guilt and liability to God’s wrath and punishment is not of the essence of sin.  The one can be removed without the other.  According to Murray, guilt and liability to wrath is of the essence of sin.  I believe that John Murray is correct and Berkhof is wrong.  But the Protestant doctrine requires Berkhof’s view.  The reason is this:  The Protestant doctrine asserts that we can become free from liability to punishment by means of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.  The Protestant doctrine also asserts that once we have even one sin on our record, we will always be sinners and unable to be right with the law by means of our own doings.  That is, we will always be, in ourselves, sinful and guilty.  But if God’s wrath is removed from us while our sin forever remains in our record, then sinfulness and a sinful record must not inherently require wrath.  In other words, if the wrath problem can be solved even though our record remains sinful, then the sinful record must not have been the basis of the wrath in the first place.  Wrath goes when that which requires and produces wrath goes.  But our sinful record doesn’t go; therefore, our sinful record doesn’t require or produce wrath.  God’s wrath will not be kindled by the presence of and complete knowledge of our sinful record through all eternity.  Apparently, then, having a sinful record is not something that in its own nature kindles God’s wrath.  And this is true (in Protestantism) not only of our sinful record in eternity, but of our remaining internal sinfulness in this life:  God has no wrath against us because we are totally justified, and yet sin remains in us.  Apparently, then, having a sin nature does not in its own nature provoke God’s wrath.  In this view, a sinful nature and a sinful record are not inherently morally repugnant to God, because if they were, they would always and necessarily kindle God’s wrath, since moral repugnance is wrath.  Berkhof must be right:  Guilt (meaning desert of punishment) is not of the essence of sin.  But do we really want to say that?  Is not Murray’s statement much more biblical and reasonable?:  “God cannot be indifferent to or complacent towards that which is the contradiction of himself.  His very perfection requires the recoil of righteous indignation.  And that is God’s wrath.”  Augustinians go with Murray’s view.  We say that guilt and liability to punishment is of the essence of sin, but that this does not doom us to no possibility of salvation because, through Christ’s salvation, not only the guilt and the liability to punishment, but the sin itself which causes the guilt, is removed.  We are truly changed to become, not sinful, but righteous, not by God somehow overlooking what we really did (our record) but by God changing who we really are.  It doesn’t matter what our record says if we have died to sin and no longer have the evil heart that links us to our previous evil deeds.  Of course, this is not perfect in this life.  We have remnants of sin, and therefore we experience God’s “fatherly displeasure,” which is a mitigated form of wrath for a mitigated condition of sinfulness.  We are holy people with a remnant of sin.  Therefore, we are acceptable to God with a remnant of displeasure from God in our experience.  It is difficult to see how Protestants can agree that we are under God’s “father displeasure” in any way if we are one hundred percent justified (the way they understand this).  If we are wholly acceptable to God, and the guilt, or moral repugnance, of our sin is entirely removed, how could God be displeased with us at all in any way?  Surely, “fatherly displeasure” is a moral affair.  If we are morally perfect (being one hundred percent righteous and justified), how can God be morally displeased with us to any degree?

Conclusion

More could be said, but I think I have written sufficiently for now.  I believe that the Protestant doctrine of justification developed as an overreaction to the works-righteousness attitude prominent in Roman Catholicism at the time of the Reformation.  Augustinianism preserves perfectly the truth that we are saved by grace through Christ’s righteousness alone and not our own, and it does justice to other biblical themes as well.  I sympathize with the Protestant doctrine, because its concerns are mine - Salvation and eternal life by the Grace of and for the Glory of God in the Son of God: this is the heart of Christianity, and therefore of reality itself.  I believe that Protestantism, if carried through to its logical conclusion, would destroy this world view by leading to antinomianism, ignorance in God, and other false doctrines, but I don’t believe that most Protestants realize this.  I think that most Protestants actually think and live like Augustinians.  I believe that Augustinianism alone, being the biblical and reasonable doctrine, preserves this heart of Christianity in its entirety and in its fullness.

ADDENDUM 1/19/16:  See here for another article that looks at the Protestant-Augustinian argument on justification in a bit of a different (and more hopeful) way.  (And, as of 1/3/18, here is another similar article, outlining two different ways of interpreting the Protestant doctrine of justification.)

ADDENDUM 1/3/18:  See here for an extended inline commentary on Romans 1-8, in which I try to bring out clearly Paul's overall doctrine of justification in these chapters.  (And, as of 2/6/18, see here for a commentary on James and here for one on Galatians.)

ADDENDUM 4/14/21:  It occurs to me that one of the major reasons Protestants often think that St. Paul supports their viewpoint is because, in Romans 3-4, Paul describes justification from a legal vantage point and uses legal categories to talk about it.  We have no righteousness of our own, so God counts Christ's righteousness as our own through faith.  What is not ours originally becomes ours through God's declaration.

The error would be in thinking that, because Paul describes justification from a legal perspective in Romans 3-4, he must intend to exclude anything other than this legal aspect from being a part of how justification works.  But that goes beyond what Paul actually says in these passages.  It makes an unwarranted leap.

It could be that, in using legal categories in Romans 3-4, Paul intends to limit justification to the purely legal.  But it may be that, while there is a legal aspect to justification, this is not all there is to it.  Since Christ’s righteousness is not ours originally but is given to us as a free gift, one can see why St. Paul might approach the topic from a legal point of view to bring that out more clearly.  He pictures us sinners standing before the bar of God’s judgment with no righteousness with which to appease the Judge.  But then God graciously imputes Christ’s righteousness to us when we trust in him, so that, because of this act of grace, we can pass God’s judgment with a righteousness not our own.

However, none of this answers the question of how Christ’s righteousness comes to make us acceptable to God.  It may be that the legal imputation is, in itself, completely sufficient, without any infusion of Christ’s righteousness into us or any moral transformation in us as a result of that.  That's the (Anti-Augustinian) Protestant view.  Or it may be that this imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us comes to actual fruition by means of such infusion and moral transformation.  Christ’s righteousness is declared ours legally, but, in our actual experience, we come into possession of it and reap its benefits (such as reconciliation with God and acceptability to his moral law) by means of that righteousness being infused into us, transforming us inwardly so that we become inwardly righteous (and then manifest that inward righteousness in good deeds).  That's the Augustinian and Catholic point of view.

St. Paul doesn’t really address this how question in Romans 3-4.  Protestants read their own answer to that question into what Paul says, but it isn’t really there.  When Paul does get around to directly addressing the question of how moral transformation (sanctification) and good works fit into our righteousness and our reconciliation with God (such as in Romans 6-8), he emphasizes the necessity of such transformation and good works, and the rest of the Pauline corpus and the Scriptures in general echo that viewpoint.  Paul, and the Scriptures in general, take the Augustinian rather than the Protestant point of view, as I’ve argued above and here.

ADDENDUM 5/5/23:  A few more helpful, related articles:  Here are some Catholic comments on some of the theology of the great Reformed theologian and philosopher Jonathan Edwards with regard to the doctrine of justification.  Here is an article looking further at the argument that righteousness is something that cannot be possessed merely legally but must be a quality inherent in the soul.  And here is a Protestant author commenting on similarities and differences between St. Augustine's and the Protestant Reformers' views on justification.

A Refutation of Greg Bahnsen's Argument for Sola Scriptura

Below is the text of a talk by Dr. Greg Bahnsen entitled Is Sola Scriptura a Protestant Concoction? A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura.  The text is taken from Christiantruth.com, the website of Protestant apologist William Webster.  The text has been transcribed (by David T. King) from a lecture which is copyrighted by the Covenant Media Foundation (and can be purchased here.)  My point in pasting it here (with permission from the Covenant Media Foundation) is to provide an inline refutation of its claims, which I have done below in red.

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.

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!”

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.

ADDENDUM 6/14/21:  See here for a fictional dialogue with a Protestant which includes discussion of Sola Scriptura issues, and also see here and here for information on Sola Scriptura and the Church Fathers.