CalvinDude.com

I had almost forgotten the joy that is internet Catholic apologists.  Then, I asked one simple question and get the full wrath of them brought upon me.

And it wasn’t even a doctrinal issue.

Dave Armstrong has this interesting habit of labelling everyone who disagrees with his view of Catholicism as an “anti-Catholic.”  So I asked: “Since everyone who disagrees with you is automatically an ‘anti-Catholic’ can I just call you an ‘anti-Calvinist’ from now on?”

Dave decided to first ignore that, leaving it to Jason Cebalo to charge me with not reading anything Dave writes (yeah, that must be why I see how many people he calls anti-Catholic; because I’m not reading anything he writes).  He claimed that Dave calls Steve Hays an anti-Catholic because Hays supposedly says Catholics aren’t Christian.

This despite Steve’s direct statements to the opposite that he does, indeed, view salvation as possible within Roman Catholicism.

Jason did later appologize for his “intemperate” tone, and finally concluded by stating:

Its just that the aproach of certain Calvinists to the whole “anti” thing really annoys me.

 

To this final quote, Dave Armstrong finally responded to what I said by saying:

 

I didn’t have the patience to answer the post, so I appreciate your doing so.

 

Gee, thanks, Dave.

Armstrong continues:

 

I made a clear distinction between anti-Catholic and Protestant in a recent post on Triablogue (as I’ve done probably 300 times by now in many many papers). These anti-Catholic clowns half the time don’t even read what we write, let alone comprehend it.

 

Yet Dave’s “distinction” is this:

This distorts what I wrote, which was that Steve might reason himself out of anti-Catholicism, not Protestantism. The two are not identical. The vast majority of Protestants are not anti-Catholics.

But this doesn’t show us how Dave is distinguishing between the two.  He is only mentioning that he does do so.

But we don’t know the inner workings of Dave Armstrong’s mind.  How are we to know how he distinguishes between anti-Catholics and Protestants in general?  The only thing we have are his words.

Based on other things he has written, it seems to boil down to this: if you object to anything Dave Armstrong says about Catholicism, you are an anti-Catholic; if you don’t say anything, you can still be a Protestant.  True Prots will just shut up and stay on the sidelines and not meddle wtih important folks, such as Dave Armstrong.

What Armstrong and his followers don’t realize is that the term “anti-Catholic” is a very specifically designed term.  It is their attempt to impute irrational bias onto the Protestant such that the Protestant is just a hate-filled, bitter person who is incapable of seeing the truth of Catholicism.  Thus, he is forced to rage in his anti-Catholic pride, unable to see the light of reason.

Armstrong never considers that maybe there are people who just disagree with him.  No, if you disagree you must be disagreeing out of hateful spite.  It must be because you’re an anti-Catholic, not because you’re confident of your own position.

Calling someone an anti-Catholic is like calling someone an anti-semite.  The connotations are the same, and Armstrong fully knows that.

Nor is Armstrong alone.  He has much company in the internet realm of Catholic apologists.  For instance, listen to the rantings of Roman Catholic Miki in her “discussion” with James White.  Compare that to what you read from her and others here. Check out the ad hominem used in criticizing James White here. Suddenly, the claims of folks like Dave Armstrong seem to ring dreadfully thin.

Given recent history, the first Catholic response to this will be to say that I’m just a James White sychophant.  This despite the fact that White and I disagree on some very important issues (I, after all, am a Presbyterian, not a Reformed Baptist).  No, I must be one of his mindless #pros drones (after all, I once was a constant feature in #prosapologian!).  Thus, I am obviously just another one of those anti-Catholic, hate-mongerers…dismissed out of hand by the application of a stereotype that exists only in the minds of rabid anti-Calvinists, such as Dave Armstrong and his sychophants.

I find it sad on both sides, actually.  I would love to live in the idealistic dream-world where everyone listened to the strengths of the arguments instead of focusing on the personality of the proponent of the argument.  Sometimes I think James White goes a little too far; but he’s downright restrained compared to the folks that write about him.  And White, at least, doesn’t say something without the ability to back it up with examples (thus, even when he engages in ad hominem (which is nowhere near as often as folks like Armstrong claim), his statements are still factually true).  This is not the case in reverse.

Frankly, the state of internet Roman Catholic apologists is one of the best arguments against their position that I can think of.

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.

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.

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.

By the way, Jacob Michael and I have been able to resume our cross-examination in our debate on Justification.  You can view it on the old site still, and hopefully by the end of the week the new codes will all be finished for ease of navigation, etc.  Look at http://www.calvindude.com/old for the old version of the site to follow along.

This is funny. A priest is on trial for saying that Jesus existed. The article says:

The priest’s atheist accuser, Luigi Cascioli, says the Roman Catholic Church has been deceiving people for 2,000 years with a fable that Christ existed, and that the Rev. Enrico Righi violated two Italian laws by reasserting the claim.

Which is funny, since A) the Roman Catholic Church hasn’t existed for 2,000 years and B) even if it had existed that long, Jesus most certainly historically existed.

Then we read stuff like this:

“The point is not to establish whether Jesus existed or not, but if there is a question of possible fraud,” Cascioli’s attorney, Mauro Fonzo, told reporters before the hearing.

That is obvious bunk, as the only way that there could have been “fraud” is if Jesus didn’t exist.  Thus, it is to establish whether Jesus existed or not; something that ought not be up to any legal system, as it is a historical question not a question of law.

But of course, the Italian courts is not the goal of this individual.  Rather:

He has said he has little hope of the case succeeding in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Italy, but that he is merely going through the necessary legal steps to reach the European Court of Human Rights, where he intends to accuse the church of what he calls “religious racism.”

So the whole issue of whether Jesus existed and thus this priest committed fraud is all moot in the first place.  This whacko just wants to charge the church with “religious racism” (whatever that is).  I wonder if he’s read Galatians 3:28.  For some reason I doubt it.

Finally, we read this:

“When somebody states a wrong fact, abusing the ignorance of people, and gains from that, that is one of the gravest crimes,” Cascioli told reporters

I wonder if Cascioli will apply this standard to himself.  After all, he claims the existence of such a thing as a “wrong fact”, and since this case is certainly one in which he will gain something (he is, after all, the author of “The Fable of Christ”), then he has obviously committed “one of the gravest crimes” (and since the “gravest crimes” demand the gravest punishment, he should be executed for stupidity).  Almost makes me want to write the Euro-peon Court of Human Rights and sue him.

That’s right, in my daily Bible reading I’m now up to the boring part of First Chronicles (which consists of roughly the first nine chapters, since they are all geneology). This reminds me a little bit of some conversations I’ve had with Roman Catholic apologists. This is because some of them (thankfully it’s not all of them) so misunderstand Sola Scriptura that they will say something like: “If Sola Scriptura is true, then you should be able to prove every bit of doctrine from every little shred of Scripture, such that not only is Sola Scriptura true but so is Sola First Peter or Sola Lamentations.”

This, of course, is absurd and is not what Sola Scriptura teaches in the least. And it is obvious when you read First Chronicles. For example, you get a passage like this: “Oholibamah, Elah, Pinon, Kenaz, Teman, Mibzar” (1 Chronicles 1:52-53). Exciting stuff to say the least…but not very doctrinally illuminating. Reading a list of names (the geneologies) is not going to give you the same teachings found in the Law, nor is it going to explain the Gospel like Paul did in the book of Romans. This is not to demean these passages in 1 Chronicles, as if to say they are not really Scripture. No, the passages are Scripture, and they do serve their purpose in demonstrating the geneology of the various kings of Israel and Judah, such that we can now look through them to see how Jesus is a descendant of David, as was prophecied. But without the prophecy also being in Scripture, the geneology lacks its meaning.

Thus, we must have all of Scripture, and not just some part of it. It is erroneous to claim that every doctrine and every belief must be declared by every verse, or even by every book. Instead, Sola Scriptura requiers tota Scriptura. That is, all Scripture.

I have discussed various things from time to time with people who deny Sola Scriptura. Those who most commonly explicitly do this in America today are Mormons and Roman Catholics, although they are by no means the only people who do this. For that matter, there are many people who practically deny Sola Scriptura even while paying lip service to the doctrine.

This morning, I read an interesting passage in First Kings. It is interesting because of the way that it relates to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, not because it explicity teaches this doctrine but because it relates to us the consequences of not believing in Sola Scriptura. See, when someone rejects Sola Scriptura, they must assert some alternate standard of authority in place of Scripture. Thus, if you do not accept the Scripture as the final authority, you must assert another authority like the First Presidency, the Papacy, or Pastor Bob’s interpretation. Some people assume that shifting the authority to a different source also shifts the responsibility to that source. In other words, if you believe something in error then when you die and get to heaven you can simply say, “It is not my fault that I believed this in error. I trusted the word of the Presidency, the Papacy, or the Pastor. Therefore, I bear no responsibility for believing error and the fault lies with my assumed authoritative standard instead of with me.”

The problem with this view is easily demonstrated by 1 Kings 13. To give an overview of the passage, “a man of God” (as the passage describes him) from Judah went to Jeroboam (the first king of Israel after the civil war that divided Israel and Judah) and prophecied against him because Jeroboam was sacrificing to idols. After he did this, Jeroboam was afraid and asked the man of God to come to his house and refresh himself, but the man of God said, “If you give me half your house, I will not go in with you. And I will not eat bread or drink water in this place, for so was it commanded me by the word of the LORD saying, ‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water nor return by the way that you came’” (1 Kings 13:7-9).

The man of God then departed. As he left, an old prophet who lived in Bethel heard about this man of God and tracked him down. When he found the man, he said, “Come home with me and eat bread” (vs. 15). The man of God declined and stated the commandment of God for his reason. The old prophet then responded: “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the LORD saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house that he may eat bread and drink water’” (vs. 18). This, however, was a lie. The old prophet had received no such message from God.

The man of God, however, listened to the old prophet. And when he had eaten with the old prophet, the old prophet cried out to the man of God from Judah and he said, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Because you have disobeyed the word of the LORD and have not kept the command that the LORD your God commanded you, but have come back and have eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which he said to you, “Eat no bread and drink no water” your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers’” (vs. 21-22). After this, the man of God departed and when he was on the road to return to Judah, he was slain by a lion. The old prophet then picked up the body of the man of God and buried him in his own grave, instructing his sons to bury him by the man of God when he died too.

At first glance, this story doesn’t seem very fair. The old prophet lied to the man of God, and it is the man of God who ends up being punished for believing the lie. And that’s precisely the reason why this passage applies to the idea of Sola Scriptura and extra-biblical authority. The Bible is clear in stating that what it teaches is truth. Each of us is responsible to understand and obey those commands in Scripture. Even if someone happens to be a prophet from God–a man who actually receives revelation from God!–that does not make him authoritative over the commands of God.

In short, what this passage shows is that each of us are responsible to believe correct doctrine, and each of us will be held accountable for not believing the truth. This is irregardless of what any other man says, even if he claims to be speaking for God, and even if at some times he does speak from God, as the old prophet did. We are each responsible to know what God has actually commanded, and being deceived by a lie is no excuse for our disobedience. As such, any extra-Biblical authority that you submit to is irrelevant in determining your status before God. You either obey Him or you disobey Him, and no extra-biblical authority will be able to save you if you have disobeyed God’s commands.