CalvinDude.com

One of the reasons that Catholics give for why sola Scriptura is invalid is the idea of the inadequacy of private interpretation of the Scriptures.  This inadequacy seems apparent, especially given our relativistic modern culture.  But in this case, the seemingly “obviousness” of the inadequacy of private interpretation ends up being a shell with no center.

The first thing that should be looked at is the philosophy invovled.  What is interpretation?  For a loose definition, let us call interpretation: the method by which the original meaning of a statement is attempted to be understood by a second party.

So if I wish to communicate concept X, I can write propositional statements about X.  A second party (i.e. anyone who is not me) then reads those propositional statements and uses interpretation to figure out what I mean by concept X.

Interpretation, therefore, involves the system of linguistics.  In order to convey a message from myself to another, I must employ the use of language.  In this case, I use the English language as it is the language I am most fluent in, and also the language of those whom I intend my message to go to.

How does language work?  It involves conventional definitions of terms that are used by everyone in the same manner.  Naturally, relativists point out that no one can use the terms in exactly the same manner; but since most terms are related to our experiences, and human experiences are by and large universal experiences, we can have a universal language the is more than sufficient to convey meaning from one person to another person based on references to those common, objective experiences.

Interpretation, therefore, involves the use of these linguistic norms to come to an understanding of someone’s intended meaning.  In order to interpret something, one must be able to understand the terms used, the context of the language, and the universal aspects that those terms appeal to.

All this is done without much thought through the common use of language.  For instance, English readers can comprehend what I write in this sentence without thinking about how they define any particular word in this sentence.  The definitions work behind the scenes as a reader pulls from their pool of words and terms and assign the meaning to those words, as well as the common sense attempt to synthesize meaning of words into the context provided by the other words.

Therefore, people are able to understand what I write by employing the rules of grammar and syntax, all without consciously doing so.  This, then, I call the “ordinary means” of interpretation.  It is ordinary insofar as it is universal and it is done without conscious effort.

But it is still the case that using “ordinary means” to interpret my writing is, in itself, a private, personal interpretation.  You do not have access to my mind to know what nuances are carried by any particular word that I use; but you do have the common use of the terms to guide you.  You use your private interpretation of what I write to come to a conclusion on my statements.

Now the strength of the Catholic argument is in the fact that personal, private interpretations can often be wrong.  One might not read carefully what I have written.  Futhermore, one might not know the definition of a specific word that I use.  Or one might have mis-learned a defintions; or I might have done so.  Thus, when one reads what I write, it is possible for error to creep into one’s personal interpretation.

But is this a problem with what is written?  Only insofar as I mis-use specific words.  If I use words correctly (according to convention) then there is no problem with my words, but instead the problem lies in the one who has misunderstood the words.  In such a case, those who understand my words correctly can correct the one who misunderstands my words by pointing to the conventional meaning of the words.

This works even if I mis-use a word, for one can look at the context and determine what a term must mean.  One can then appeal to the context and previous uses of the same term to make an argument as to what I intended to convey by the use of the term.

In each of these instances, one is using a private, personal interpretation; but it is not one that is isolated on the individual!  It is one that conforms to the norms of “ordinary means” of interpretation.  One does not need to specifically ask me to clairfy points that are clarified within the text I write.  The only time one would need to ask for clarification is if the information needed to understand what I write is not present in my written materials.  For example, if I use a term only once and it is not clear from the context what exactly it means, one would be justified in asking me to provide clarification.

This is what Roman Catholics say the Magisterium is designed to do.  When there is confusion in the text, the Magisterium has the “Tradition” that can interpret these words correctly.

When someone interprets what the Magisterium says, however, that person must still use his personal interpretation of the Magisterium.  The personal interpretation filter merely moves back one step.  Now, instead of interpreting the original text of Scripture, one must interpret the meaning of the Magisterium.  This, too, is prone to exactly the same kind of errors as any text of Scripture, because both the text of Scripture and the statements of the Magisterium are based in language.

But there is a second problem.  Stating that Scriptures require that Magisterium for interpretation presupposes that these answers cannot be found in Scripture already.  It presupposes that the Magisterium is necessary because the text of Scripture is insufficient to provide meaning.  In other words, the Magisterium is required only because Scripture is lacking.

The Protestant view, on the other hand, is that people, using ordinary means, can indeed understand the salvific nature of Scripture.  This does not mean that a reader will understand everything in Scripture; there surely are some issues that are too vague or too planted in a previous culture for us to understand completely.  However, when it comes to the message of the Gospel, the message is simple and repeated several times so what is unclear in one passage is clear in another passage.  Therefore, using ordinary means and reading all of Scripture, anyone is able to know what is necessary for salvation.

Does this mean that Protestants think it should be “every man and his Bible alone”?  Of course not.  God gave us the church for a purpose and a reason, and part of that was to ensure correct doctrine.  Naturally, churches can err since they are made of fallible people, but the tendancy of the church to err is going to be less likely (due to the correcting influence of other perspectives present there) than a person on his own (with no other perspective than his own).  The church–the assembly of believers–while not infallible, is still important.  The opinions of others, while not infallible, are still something that should be considered.

However, in the end, regardless of what anyone else says, what you believe is going to be what you personally interpret to be truth, whether you get that truth from other people or from the Scriptures themselves.  There is simply no way to avoid the personal aspect of this, since at the point of personal belief there must be a personal interpretation.

In a previous blog entry, I mentioned the fact that the Old Testament gave us a great deal of information about who Christ was. Although the specific name of “Jesus Christ” is not mentioned in the Old Testament, it does still identify the Messiah with other specific names and titles. The Old Testament, then, is full of references to Christ (both Christ and Messiah mean “Anointed One”). And while it is certainly true that the vast majority of these connections would not be easily seen without the light of the New Testament shining on them, they nevertheless remain real connections that could be found from the Old Testament alone. So let us look at these references now.The first reference to the Messiah occurs when God curses the Serpent after the Fall of Adam. This is known as the protoevangelum. In Genesis 3:15, we read: “I will put enmity between you [the Serpent (i.e. Satan)] and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

This shows us a great deal about who the Messiah would be. The primary message is simple: The Messiah will crush Satan’s head, although He will receive a wound in exchange. The wound to the Messiah would be painful, but the wound to Satan would be devastating.

Secondly, we see here that the Messiah would have a human nature. The humanity of the Messiah is indicated by the fact that the enmity will be between Satan and “the woman” and between Satan’s offspring and “her offspring.” The Messiah would be human; yet interestingly enough, His humanity is established through the woman (Eve) and not through the man (Adam). It is the woman’s offspring who will do this, not the man’s.

Thus we see from this verse that the promised Messiah would have a human nature through Eve, and that He would crush Satan in a manner that will leave His heel bruised.

Immediately after the Fall, we have the story of Cain and Abel. When Abel was murdered, God told Cain: “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10). Naturally, we know that blood does not have a literal voice; but God was stating here that blood does metaphorically communicate something, and thus the shedding of blood is a big deal. That is why He later commanded, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9:6).

While there are other types and shadows that we could look at, that would require this blog entry to be book length! So to be brief, let us move forward to Abraham. Abraham was promised that he would be a great nation, although he was childless. More importantly is the promise that the Messiah would come through Abraham’s lineage. Yet it was not just Abraham here, but also Sarah, for Abraham’s son Ishmael was not the promised lineage. Instead, Isaac was. This shows us that it is once again the woman’s portion of the lineage that plays a key role, for Messiah would not just come from Abraham but Sarah too.

After Isaac’s birth, God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to him (see Genesis 22). This was said to test Abraham, but also to provide us a picture of the Messiah. Abraham obeyed God. He took Isaac and bound him upon the altar. Then, God stayed his hand from killing Isaac and provided a substitute—a ram that was caught in a thicket.

This story must have seemed extremely odd to the Jews, especially during the time that Moses enscripturated it. They knew that God would not command an immoral act such as the sacrifice of a child! In fact, if Abraham had carried it out, Abraham would have fallen under the order of Genesis 9:6 and would have forfeited his own life. The Jews also knew that the Messiah’s lineage would pass through Isaac, not Ishmael. So what was the underlying meaning to the story?

Isaac was put on the altar as a sacrifice, but God provided an alternate sacrifice. Instead of being killed on the altar, God substituted something else that satisfied the requirements of the sacrifice, thus demonstrating the validity of substitution.

When we put this idea of substitution with the fact that the Messiah was promised to crush the head of Satan and receive a wound in the process, we can see that Messiah would be that substitutionary sacrifice. That sacrifice would require blood, which we have seen “communicates” something to God.

This is even more clearly seen by the laws regarding the sacrificial system. We read in Leviticus 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.” Atonement, therefore, comes not just through the shedding of blood, but the taking of life.

Animals were provided as substitutes for the Jews. The Jews would identify themselves with the animal by placing their hand on its head (“And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and kill the sin offering in the place of burnt offering” (Lev. 4:29)). The life of the animal would be substituted for the sinful Jew. The blood would then be put on the altar to communicate that substitution to God.

We can see then that the manner in which the Messiah would crush Satan’s head would be through the substitutionary atonement of His blood upon the people of God.

So thus far we see that the Messiah would be human (through the woman’s side), He would conquer Satan by being sacrificed. This sacrifice would require the shedding of blood and the taking of Messiah’s life. But His death would also be considered as a “bruised heel” and not a “bruised head” leaving open the possibility that His death is not the end.

When we move on to Isaiah’s promises regarding the Messiah, we learn even more. For instance, we learn: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.” (Isaiah 7:14-15). Immanuel means “God with us.” Traditionally, this passage was viewed as having both an immediate fulfillment (probably in the son of Isaiah, Mahershalalhashbaz), and a duel Messianic interpretation, since the child is metaphorical of the remnant left in Judah in verse 15 (as seen from the term “curds and honey”, something that typically infants do not eat, but which people left behind in a ravaged country would). If this passage is Messianic, then we learn that the Messiah would come of a virgin. (Naturally, while the Hebrew word does not have to mean “virgin” but could mean a young woman of marriageable age, it most often was translated as “virgin” and indeed, even the LXX did just that.)

But even if the above were not Messianic, we learn a great deal more later on in Isaiah about the Messiah. For instance, we read:

 

Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astonished at you—his appearance was so marred, beyond human resemblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand (Isaiah 52:13-15).

Here we see a clear referenced to the Messiah as the “high and lifted up” and “exalted” servant. Yet this servant is also “so marred, beyond human resemblance…beyond that of…mankind.” An interesting concept for the Messiah to be both high and lifted up and marred.

But Isaiah continues:

Who has believed what they heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53)

Here we see that this passage is explicitly speaking of the Messiah. The Messiah is going to provide the substitutionary atonement for his people, just as we have already seen foreshadowed. We see specifically that “he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.” It is His sacrifice that saves us, and it saves us by His death. “When his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring.”

Thus, we see the Messiah had a human nature, He would substitute Himself for His people, He would suffer and die and by His death He would actually save His people. This is all done according to “the will of the LORD.” And the end result is that “he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.”

As if this was not enough, the Old Testament also states that the Messiah is divine. David, for instance, wrote of the Messiah: “The LORD said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:7). He then writes: “Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all those who take refuge in him” (Psalm 2:11-12). David here indicates that we are to take refuge in the Son. This could only occur if the Son was divine, for it is God who we are to take refuge in!

The sons of Korah state that the Messiah is God explicitly in Psalm 45:6-7: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

This is seen clearly when we look at who the subjects are in the above passages. We start with:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” Thus, the King on the throne is God. More importantly, the “you” in the sentences are referring to this King and this God. Thus, it is God’s scepter of uprightness. And it is God who is the “your/you” in the statement: “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you.” (In other words, “God, God’s God, has anointed God.”

We see this again in Psalm 110:1, where David states: “The LORD [YWHW] said to my Lord [adonai]: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’” This Lord is shown to have divine rights by sitting at the right hand of God—something no angel is ever afforded! Angels must stand before God. They do not sit, and they do not sit at the seat of power.

Isaiah 9:6 states: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Here, the son who is born (and thus, human) is called “Mighty God.” He is also born, and yet called “Everlasting Father.” “Everlasting” is something that God is—eternal.

This is also shown in Micah 5:2: “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, who’s origin is from old, from ancient days.” Thus, the ruler from Bethlehem will “come forth” in Bethlehem, yet his origin is “from old, from ancient days.” In other words, the one who comes forth has an eternal aspect to him.

Thus we see from the Old Testament alone that:

1) the Messiah would be both divine and human (since the humanity of the Messiah is specifically linked to His coming from the woman, the divinity of the Messiah would logically be from the Father; thus, even if Isaiah 7:14 is not Messianic, one could still logically conceive of the virgin birth of the Messiah);

2) that He would be a substitutionary sacrifice for His people;

3) that His sacrifice would be sufficient to save His people;

4) that He is eternally the Son of God but that He will be manifest temporally (hence his “Everlasting”ness and his “origin…from old” in juxtaposition with his being “born” and his “com[ing] forth”).

Thus, we have a great deal of information about the Messiah without even needing to look at the New Testament! We can see that the New Testament functions not so much as new revelation, but instead as a lens that brings all of the Old Testament into focus. Indeed, it is for this reason that Christ said He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The Law does nothing but point toward Christ!

I’m thinking this is bordering on pure obsession now:

Cindy Sheehan Buys 5 Acres of Land in Crawford.

The reason that Protestants say that faith is necessary for salvation but baptism is not is due to the fact that:

1) People who are baptized without faith are not saved;

while

2) People who have faith but are not baptized are still saved (e.g. the thief on the cross).

July 26, 2006.  False Hope, NY. – Two-star General John W. Loftus faces an Article 32 hearing after allegations that he systematically ignored pleas for a reasonable response in the War on Truth surfaced Monday.

“If we are conducting a just war, we need everyone to conduct their manner justly,” said False Hope mayor Dan Yell Morgan.  “Just because we say it’s just a just cause doesn’t mean it’s just to justify it with just, you know, words and sounds.”

The allegations, made public earlier this morning, allege that General Loftus responded to an internal critique attack with the statement, “You’re an idiot.”  It is likewise alleged that he mounted a defense of the False Hope Beliefs System with “You’re also stupid” and “I’m going to ban you” threats, thus enabling enemy forces to puncture the heart of False Hope and leave the city realing from the attack.

“That’s just not acceptable,” Morgan said.  “If he is going to respond that way, he needs to use expletives too.  Like you’re a [expletive deleted] and [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] idiot, [expletive deleted]!  Otherwise, no one is going to take the ‘you’re an idiot’ claim seriously.”

General Loftus, WHO IS A FORMER STUDENT OF WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, is a former student of William Lane Craig.  Once a popular figure in the media, Loftus’s image has been tainted since his February interview in “Exposed Magazine” where he candidly admitted, “The W. in my name?  That stands for ‘William Lane Craig.’”

The Article 32 hearing will determine whether or not General Loftus will be court-martialed.  He was unable to be reached for comment.

Stephen Ray has stated in Crossing the Tiber: 

Did Jesus ever promise to give us an authoritative book? No. Why didn’t the apostles, namely, St. John, who was the last to die, give us a final list of infallible books? Did the apostles promise or hand us an authoritative book? Again, the answer is No (Ray, Stephen K.,Crossing the Tiber, (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997; p. 33)).

While it is true that neither Jesus nor John ever sat down and said, “Here’s a list of the books of the Bible,” Ray misses the internal witness the various Scriptures have intrinsic to their very nature. Scripture does indeed claim that it is divine in origin, sufficient in doctrine, and authoritatively binding upon the Christian (and indeed, the non-Christian too). If Scripture makes this claim, and if this claim is true, then we have all the authority that we need from Scripture alone.

So let us do a quick survey of what Scripture says about Scripture. We start with 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Ray comments on this passage:

 

The closest I came [as a Protestant] to establishing a biblical case for sola Scriptura was 2 Timothy 3:16, which was certainly not intended by St. Paul as a proof text for the sole sufficiency of Scripture. In fact, if it were used in that way, the text would prove too much, since the term “Scripture” in this passage is referring to the Old Testament (there was no New Testament canon yet) and would thereby exclude the New Testament from the proof (ibid, p. 30).

I would maintain that even Ray’s argument does not “prove too much” regarding sola Scriptura. Indeed, the Old Testament is sufficient to provide us with everything necessary for salvation, including Christ’s intercessory work. And while the Old Testament doesn’t use the name “Jesus,” it does identify Christ in other manners (such as calling him “Immanuel—God with us,” a clear reference to the incarnation). While it is certainly easier to understand who Christ is with the light of the New Testament, the Old Testament Scriptures are sufficient to the task (as I will demonstrate in a later blog entry).

But first, what does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 say?

 

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The first thing I would note is that the term “All Scripture” does not refer just to the Old Testament here. Paul also had in mind his own writings, as well as some other New Testament texts. Remember, 2 Timothy was written toward the end of Paul’s life, as his last charges for his beloved Timothy. The Gospel of Luke already existed at this time, for Paul quotes from it in his previous letter to Timothy when he says, “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” (1 Timothy 5:18).

Where does the Scripture say, “The laborer deserves his wages”? In only one place: Luke 10:7, where Jesus says, “And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.”

Thus we see that Paul includes not only Old Testament passages, but the Gospel of Luke as well. Not only does this quote demonstrate that the Gospel of Luke is of much earlier origin than many “scholars” claim (after all, Paul was executed by 65 AD, so Luke had to pre-exist his death), but it also shows that Paul, at least, viewed it as Scripture and thus, even though there was no “canon” at the time, Luke was still perceived to be Scripture.

We also know that Paul’s epistles were viewed as Scriptural. For instance, Peter writes, “And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16, emphasis added).

Likewise, there is certainly no reason for us to think that the Apostles did not consider their writings to be authoritative Scripture. The very nature of Paul’s writings demonstrates that he wrote what came from God, and was thus Scripture. And because he did consider it Scripture, it would likewise be included under the banner of 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

As Robert L. Reymond states:

 

[T]here is sound reason to believe that Paul would have been willing to include, and almost certainly did include, within the technical category of “all Scripture” the New Testament documents, including his own, as well. For when Paul wrote what he did in 1 Corinthians 7, he affirmed sarcastically to those who were claiming to have the Spirit’s approval to do otherwise than he had directed: “And I think I also have the Spirit of God”…(1 Cor. 7:40). Paul expresses here his awareness that what he wrote as an apostle, he wrote under the Spirit’s superintendence. Again, Paul expresses an awareness of the Spirit’s superintending influence upon him when he writes in 1 Corinthians 14:37: “If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.”… Thus Paul would have included within his expression “all Scripture” any and every written document that was from God and thus of the nature of “sacred writings,” including not only the Old Testament and those portions of the New Testament that were already written but also those portions of the New Testament that were not yet to be written. For Paul, whatever was “Scripture” was “Godbreathed”; indeed, precisely because it was “Godbreathed” it was “sacred Scripture” (Reymond, Robert L., A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN, 1998; pp. 34-35)).

This last point is especially important. All Scripture is God-breathed. Its origin is from God, and therefore it is automatically authoritative. One cannot get more authoritative than a statement directly from God Himself. For this reason, Scripture does not need to appeal to another authority; the fact of inspiration is sufficient to make what Scripture says authoritative.

Insofar as this goes, the Church at this point becomes superfluous. It is not necessary that the Church “authenticate” Scripture; Scripture is itself self-authenticating. It is impossible to list out the number of passages of Scripture containing the phrase, “Thus says the LORD” or “The mouth of the LORD has spoken”, etc.

Naturally, someone may object by saying, “Any document can claim to be inspired. But how do we know it tells the truth?” At this point, I like what the Westminster Confession of Faith (hereafter: WCF) states. First it appeals to the point I made above:

 

The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received; because it is the Word of God (WCF I/4)

For the Scriptural proof of this paragraph, the WCF provides the following (quoted in the King James Version, since that was the version used by the authors of the confession): “2 Pet. 1:19, 21. “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your heart. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Timothy 3:16 [quoted earlier—ed.]. 1 John 5:9. “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.” 1. Thess. 2:13. “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

The confession then states:

 

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scriptures. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts (WCF I/5)

The first thing to note is that the Church does, indeed, move us toward a “high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scriptures.” This is a proper function of the Church from Scripture. The Confession at this point quotes 1 Timothy 3:15, “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (This passage is often quoted by Catholics, naturally.)

But equally important is the second point, that the Holy Spirit does bear witness in the hearts of the believers. For that Scriptural support, the confession quotes: 1 John 2:20. “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” John 16:13-14. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will shew you all things to come. He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” 1. Cor. 2:10, 12. “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him; even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.” Isa. 54:21. “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord: My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.”

Thus we see that the testimony of the Spirit is a Scripturally valid argument to make. Yet this does not render the entire discussion “subjective” since, as the Confession also points out, there are several indications of the inspiration of Scripture, such as its content, its purpose, its self-consistency, and its effectiveness. These are objective signs that we can hold onto when we consider what Scripture is.

Unlike some Protestants, who seem to have an almost phobic reaction to “Catholicness”, most Reformed believers have no problem at all with the idea that God did indeed direct the Church through the first few centuries to the point Scripture was “officially” canonized. (This “Catholic” Church of the first century, however, was vastly different than the modern Roman Catholic Church, I must point out; in this instance, it is the Roman Catholic Church who is at odds with the “historical” catholic Church due to Rome’s acceptance of the apocryphal books, as none of “official” canons of Scripture before the Council of Trent contained them).

Since, then, we see that Scripture is inspired by God, and that in addition to the historical church’s ideas, the Spirit bears witness to us about their authenticity, we can further ask what the Scriptures specifically say about their own sufficiency. I can think of no better place to begin than with the words of the very Word of God, Jesus Christ:

 

If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead (Luke 16:31).

With this statement, Jesus puts the authority of the Old Testament on equal footing with a supernatural event such as the raising of the dead. The Old Testament is here claimed to be sufficient to settle the matters regarding salvation, such that even a miracle like rising from the dead is not more authoritative.

Likewise, Jesus equates heresy with not knowing Scripture when he rebukes the Sadducees by saying, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” in Matthew 22:29. Clearly, then, not knowing Scripture at least contributes to error according to the word of Christ.

Jesus claims that Scripture “cannot be broken” in John 10:35. In Matthew 5:18, he states: “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Similarly, He claims, “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void” (Luke 16:17).

As Reymond explains:

 

Again and again Jesus referred to “the Law and the Prophets”… often citing them to settle an issue…and implying as he did so that the Old Testament was for him a fixed canon of authority. He regarded its history as unimpeachable, often choosing for his illustrations the very Old Testament events that prove least acceptable as factual history to the contemporary critical scholar, such as the creation of man in the beginning by a direct act of God (Matt. 19:4-5), the murder of Abel (Matt. 23:35), Noah’s flood (Matt. 24:37), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15, 11:23-24), the tragic end of Lot’s wife (Luke 17:32), and the fish’s swallowing of Jonah (Matt. 12:40).Jesus repulsed the Tempter simply by citing Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:16, and 6:13 (see Matt. 4:4, 7, 10), each time demonstrating his belief in the final authority of the Old Testament by prefixing his citation with “It has been written [and stands so]”…(see also Matt. 11:10; 21:13; 26:24, 31).

Repeatedly Christ asked: “Have you not read [the Scriptures]?” (Matt. 12:3; 19:4; 21:16; 22:31). He ordered the cleansed leper to obey the Mosaic legislation pertaining to cases of cleansing (Matt. 8:4). He taught that John the Baptist fulfilled the prediction of Malachi 3:1 (Matt. 11:10). He regarded words spoken either by Adam or Moses (probably the latter, Gen. 2:24) as ultimately from God (Matt. 19:4)… He warned that Daniel’s prophecy of the abomination of desolation (Dan. 9:27, 11:31; 12:11) was soon to be fulfilled (Matt. 24:15; Luke 21:20).

He taught that the Old Testament Scriptures “testified” about him (John 5:39), and that Moses wrote about him (John 5:46-47). After reading Isaiah 61:1-2 aloud in the synagogue at Nazareth, he stated: “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” He also declared to his disciples: “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled” (Luke 18:31). At the Last Supper he declared: “The Son of Man is going just as it has been written about him” (Matt. 26:24), and then he stated: “This Scripture [Isa. 53:12] must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37). Then on the Mount of Olives he declared: “This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written, ‘I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered’” (Matt. 26:31). Clearly Jesus believed that the Old Testament spoke explicitly and authoritatively about him. Indeed, so authoritative for Jesus were the prophetic Scriptures that it was more important to him that they be fulfilled than that he escape arrest and the horrible death of crucifixion: “Do you think,” he asked Peter, “that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that it must happen this way? … But all this has happened that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled” (Matt. 26:53-56; Mark 14:49). … Whoever searches the Gospel narratives for himself will be driven to the conclusion of Reinhold Seeberg: “Jesus himself describes and employs the Old Testament as an infallible authority” (Reymond, ibid, 45-46).

It is important to note that Christ’s appeal to Scripture would make no sense if He did not think His hearers would be able to comprehend those Scriptures and relate them to what He spoke about. The fact of Christ’s quoting Scripture is a strong indication that Christ viewed them as sufficiently clear for a person, using ordinary means, to understand what they meant.

The conclusion that we can come to is a simple one. The Scriptures are authoritative. They are sufficiently clear. They are our final appeal.

What, then, do we do with the charge that Roman Catholics make that sola Scriptura is the cause of such great division in the Church? For instance, Ray states:

 

The Reformation principle of “each man with a Bible and his own interpretation” has brought about the tragic results we see today. The results are everywhere, obvious and devastating, as the “Reformation” spun out of control (Ray, ibid, pp. 44-45)

In a footnote to the last sentence, Ray then states:

 

The legacy of the Reformation is more than twenty-three thousand different sects and schisms (denominations), with a new one starting every day, according to the World Census of Religious Activities (New York: U.N. Information Center, 1989).

However, the number “twenty-three thousand” is vastly overstated, as evidenced even by some of Ray’s further writing. For instance, he writes:

 

In speaking of Protestants, I am referring to myself first, to the historical movement begun by Martin Luther (followed by Calvin, Zwingli, and others) second, and third, to the Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and “Bible-believing” Christians who trace their roots back to, and still hold to, the foundational principles of the Protestant Reformation. There are many strains of Protestants, ranging from fringe cults like the Moonies and Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Anglicans and other liturgical churches that still maintain some similarities with the Catholic Church. (Ray, Ibid, pp. 62, footnote)

It is so obvious it need not be said but neither the “Moonies” nor the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” are “’Bible-believing’ Christians” in the least, nor do they “still hold to” (since they never held to) “the foundational principles of the Protestant Reformation.” These cults are just that—non-Christian cults. Thus, one has to wonder how many of the twenty-three thousand “Protestant denominations” are really Protestant denominations. Furthermore, I wonder how many “sects” exist in Roman Catholicism if, for instance, we said that Jesuits, Augustinian, and Benedictine monks were each their own “sect” and were each “schismatics” for not upholding the unity of the Catholic Church. Indeed, since the Catholic Church now maintains that Protestants are “separated brethren” then wouldn’t that mean Protestants actually are still part of the Catholic Church in some invisible way and thus not schismatic?

The logic of the Catholic claim here becomes weaker and weaker. The claim is: Sola Scriptura caused all the divisions. But where did this “sola Scriptura schism” originate? Martin Luther was a Catholic monk before he became a Protestant. John Calvin (who, despite Ray’s repeated claims that he was a Swiss reformer, was a Frenchman) was a Catholic before he became a Protestant too.

Likewise, Ray quotes Cyril of Jerusalem:

 

And if ever you are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the House of the Lord is,–for the others, the sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens the Houses of the Lord,–nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church (ibid. p.70 footnote).

Thus, even before the idea of “sola Scriptura” (according to Ray) existed, there were false groups that pretended to be the Church. Why is it not, therefore, logical for us to say that these schism occurred due to the Catholic Church? After all, if it were not for the existence of the Catholic Church, the Protestants would not have “Reformed” in the first place!

Of course, such logic is spurious for the Catholic. But likewise, it is spurious to claim that sola Scriptura has caused all the divisions in the Protestant Church, especially when one considers that very few Protestants actually do hold to sola Scriptura now.

Since this blog entry has now gotten quite long, I shall stop with one final point. James White once stated on the Dividing Line (see his website at http://www.aomin.org) that we could make a little comparison. Take three churches that seriously hold to sola Scriptura (he named the PCA, Reformed Baptists, and the Evangelical Free Churches). Each of these churches have identical soteriology (i.e. the doctrine of salvation). Take three groups that do not hold to sola Scriptura but instead an extra-Biblical “final authority” (he named the Roman Catholic Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons) and you’ll see that these are all nowhere near identical soteriologically. The point is not that the Roman Catholic Church = Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. The point is that churches who actually hold to sola Scriptura are virtually identical where it matters (in soteriology), while those who do not are all over the board. Sola Scriptura, therefore, results in a unity between Christians even stronger than the unity claimed by the Catholic Church.

I’m in the midst of packing since I’ll be moving.  I’ll take this moment to point out the fact that I hate moving!

It’s just such a hassel. 

Pack everything up.  Move it.  Unpack it all.  Try to find where you put everything.  Give up.  Buy a new version of what you were missing.  Find the old one.  Give away the old one.  Break the new one.

Oh well.  Packing does have one benefit.  I get to flip through my books as I pack them.

I remember recently reading in Crossing the Tiber about how the Westminster Confession of Faith called the Pope the anti-christ.  Interestingly enough, I packed up my copy of the WCF last night.  I flipped through the front of it and discovered that the version that the PCA and RPC adopted does not have that pope = anti-christ paragraph in it (although the original does).

Anyway, along with my WCF was The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson.  I’ve only gone about half-way through it, and alas now I have to pack it!  sigh

All of that reminds me that the better part of my library is still in storage.  Hopefully, I’ll be able to get those books out in the next couple of weeks and back on a bookshelf where they belong!  Until then…it’s pack and unpack, haul and move, blah and blah!!!!

Reading through Stephen K. Ray’s Crossing the Tiber has shown the importance of being able to accurately define what sola Scriptura is.  Ray’s conversion to Roman Catholicism began when

I discovered that sola Scriptura was weak, unbiblical, unhistorical, and untenable.  Sola Scriptura left the entire structure [of Protestantism] unsound and flawed at the very base, like a house built on sand, and yet it was the bedrock of Protestant theologies (Ray, Stephen K. Crossing the Tiber, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997; (p. 29)).

Unfortunately, sola Scriptura is no longer the “bedrock of Protestant theologies.”  In fact, this can be demonstrated by Ray’s own list of things that he did not find in Scripture:

Here are a few words and practices added or developed by Protestants that are not found in the Bible: “age of accountability”, “total depravity of man”, “ask Jesus into your heart” (can you recall Paul emphasizing this concept?), the “Rapture” (from a prophetic revelation in Scotland in the nineteenth century), “clothed in the righteousness of Christ” (a phrase never found in the New Testament, cf. Rev 19:8), “invisible Church”, emphasis on a “personal relationship with Christ”, “accepting Christ as personal Lord and Savior”, “enthroning the Bible in your heart” (Halley’s Bible Handbook), limited atonement, the “altar call”, rededication, tent revivals, inerrancy, eternal security, denominations, “folding hands” to pray, faith alone, sola Scriptura, devotions, missionaries, full-time ministry, seminaries, church buildings (New Testament worship was in private homes, e.g., Rom 16:5; Col 4:15) with the building referred to as a “church”, baptism and the Eucharist as mere symbols, Sunday school, the Christian flag (on most Protestant platforms), and many, many more (ibid. p. 43, in footnote 58).

Now despite the fact that there are several things on this list that actually are in Scripture, the above list should more than solidify the fact for Ray that the modern Protestant movement that he is criticizing is anything but engaged in sola Scriptura!  What Ray is criticizing here is not the practice of sola Scriptura, but instead the extrabiblical addition of traditions–something that classical Reformed Protestants (such as myself) also criticize!  Thus, Ray’s argument against sola Scriptura here is actually an argument for sola Scriptura.

So just what is the doctrine of sola Scriptura?  In a summary, we can say sola Scriptura is the affirmation that: “Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for doctrine and morals for the Christian.”  I emphasized the word “infallible” because sola Scriptura does not deny that there are other rules of faith; it only denies that those other rules of faith are “infallible.”

By way of example, I am a Presbyterian in a PCA church.  We hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF).  The WCF is not infallible, but it is a rule of faith for Presbyterians.  Presbyterians agree with the WCF insofar as it reflects the teachings of Scripture.  If we ever find that something in the WCF does not adhere to Scripture, then Scripture trumps the authority of the WCF.  This is why it is not infallible although it remains a rule of faith.

Along a similar vein, I would also argue that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is also a rule of faith.  It, too, is not infallible though (contrary to what Catholics teach).  Thus, when Scripture and the CCC contradict each other (as they do in points), Scripture trumps the CCC.

Scripture, therefore, becomes the final authority for the Christian.  The Church is composed of individuals who are fallible.  Even Roman Catholics will agree that the popes are not impeccible.  Scripture, however, is both infallible and impeccible.  We can therefore use it as our final authority and judgment.

Thus, when we look at Protestant traditions (and Ray is correct in pointing out that Protestants have just as many traditions as Catholics do), we weigh them by whether they adhere to the infallible Scriptures.  If they do not, we ought to jettison them.  If they do, then we are safe in practicing those traditions.  The same thing can be said of Roman Catholic traditions too.  Insofar as a Catholic tradition is consistent with Scripture, we are safe in practicing that tradition.  But if a Catholic tradition goes against Scripture (something that Catholics do not claim, but which Protestants do) then Scripture trumps the tradition.

I will be looking over some more of Ray’s arguments later on this blog.

One of my friends has asked me to read Crossing the Tiber and he is allowing me to borrow his copy of the book.  I’ve only read about fifty pages so far, so I’m not going to give any specific critique of it yet.  Instead, I’m going to focus on two things that frustrate me.  These two things are seemingly paradoxical, but they actually are not.

The first frustration is the fact that this book deals mostly with strawman arguments.  It does not go too deeply into the actual historical Protestant positions much at all, and as such (since I hold to the historical Protestant positions) I don’t find much in there in the way of compelling evidence against my position.

The second frustration, however, is that in reality the book is not that much of a strawman argument after all.  Instead, it addresses the Evangelicalism that the author experienced.  Likewise, I know from the church that I attended with my friend, that other Evangelical churches are doing a wonderful job of becoming the strawmen arguments.

Thus, to give a specific example, when the book critiques the Protestant idea of sola Scriptura, it doesn’t say anything about the historical sola Scriptura position, but it does go against the shallowness of many modern “Evangelical” churches in America.

Thus, I fully understand why this book has an appeal to some people who are struggling with issues relating to Roman Catholicism.  Those who have been spoon-fed conclusions without learning the premises to go along with those conclusions are left floundering when challenged, and this book is a challenge to those conclusions.

Thus, I think in the end even though I have not found much compelling in the book so far as it relates to my position, it is a great wakeup call for showing that the American Church needs to learn to become intellectual.  We need to teach our people how to think.  We need to demonstrate our positions Scripturally and logically and historically when necessary.

Because even if someone has the right answer, if he doesn’t know how he got it he cannot have certainty in the correctness of his answer.

July 18, 2006 False Hope, NY–A TGE captain was rescued earlier this morning after spending a harrowing night lost at sea. Captain X. B. Leaveher was found suffering from hypothermia, emotional hemophilia, and a martyr complex after he accidentally torpedoed his own submarine.

Leaveher was patroling the seas off the coast of False Hope when he spotted the TAG battleship CalvinDude.  According to the decorated TGE captain, he began with his typical opening salvo of Ad-Hom-Anim missiles, but their guidance chips malfunctioned and they fell short of their target.

Leaveher then tried the new InSULT LASER in an attempt to blind the operators of CalvinDude.  Leaveher said, “I tried the typical ‘You-didn’t-read-what-I-wrote’ laser.  But apparently it just reflected off the shaved skull of the captain of TAG CalvinDude.”

According to witnesses, Leaveher’s laser consisted of a frank message:

“See, I wrote words, you read words, but they didn’t connect upstairs somewhere. I never said experience = reasonable-ness. I said that regarding the existence of things outside of our experience>/b> it is reasonable to be skeptical. I didn’t say that if we experience something or believe we do that experience is reasonable. Do you see the difference? Probably not.”

The TAG CalvinDude responded with the U.R.A.-Hypocrite missile by pointing out that the battleship had already anticipated and thwarted that laser frequency. The TAG CalvinDude then responded with the following high-speed bullets:

* If experience does not equal reasonability, then what was the point of X. B. Leaveher’s argument when he bases reasonability on ”common experience”?

* If experience does not equal reasonability, then how does one determine what is reasonable?  It must be something other than experience.  And if that is the case, then isn’t it ”reasonable” to be skeptical not only of what we do not experience, but what we do experience too?

* X. B. Leaveher still has not given an actual definition for “rational.”

At this point, realizing his submarine was taking on water at an alarming rate, Captain Leaveher pulled out all the stops and launched his ultimate weapon, the ID10T Torpedo.

“Something went wrong,” Leaveher told reporters after his rescue.  “The torpedo went out, did a one-eighty, and came straight back at me!”

According to scientific experts, the ID10T Torpedo worked perfectly.  “It went after the closest idiot,” said an official familiar with the investigation, who wished to remain anonymous since he was not authorized to speak to the media.

When asked if the fact that his submarine’s argumental skin was constructed of tinfoil had any bearing on why it sank so fast, Leaveher said, “I’m sure officials are looking into that.  We’ve already been experimenting with duct tape arguments.  They will probably replace our current tinfoil shells by next summer.”

In the meantime, the TGE Navy is without its most decorated captain until a new ship can be built.  When asked what impact that will have on the False Hope military, one anonymous insider reported, “Given the job Captain Leaveher has done so far, we probably won’t even notice his absense.”