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.