A Roman Catholic (Joe) has offered a critique of an article I've written and is hosted at www.monergism.com entitled Surprised by What? A Defense of Sola Scriptura - HERE .
Joe:
Dear Mr. Magee,
I recently read an article defending sola scriptura at:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/SurprisedbyWhat.html
I found the article very interesting and well presented. If you are not the author of this article, I apologize and please ignore this e-mail. If you are the author, I would like to share my thoughts on it.
Your quote:
“Now, if I say that Frank’s Furniture Farm is complete or adequate to furnish perfectly my house, I mean that I don’t need to go anywhere else. In other words, Frank’s Furniture Farm is sufficient, or good enough; no other store is necessary. In the same way, Paul is saying that Scripture is adequate and complete to perfectly furnish the believer to live life as God intends; nothing else needs to be added. In short, Scripture is necessary and sufficient. Contrary to Scott Hahn’s and Bob Sungenis’ assertion that “sola scriptura is simply not taught anywhere in the Bible, either explicitly or implicitly,” 2 Tim 3:16 &17 is as explicit and clear in its support of Sola Scriptura as John 1:1-3 is explicit and clear about Christ’s deity.”
End quote.
The problem is that the Bible calls Scripture “profitable” and the man of God as “sufficient”. It does not follow that because the man of God becomes sufficient, that the Scripture is sufficient. If you want to use the furniture analogy, let’s say Frank’s Furniture Farm only stocks bedrooms sets. It would be quite accurate to say “Frank’s Furniture Farm” is PROFITABLE to perfectly/completely furnish my house” and still have it true that you might have to go to Allen’s Home Furnishings to pick up a kitchen set. Do you see the difference?
To illustrate this even further, we could turn to 2 Timothy 2:19-21 (NASB):
Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness." Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.
If abstaining from wickedness and cleansing oneself from evil is able to make one “prepared for every good work”, then using the same reasoning you used for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it would follow that this would be “sufficient” and the Scriptures are not necessary at all.
You see, Paul is not trying to make a case for sola scriptura in 2 Timothy. He is imprisoned, nearing the end of his life, and wants Timothy to carry on as a faithful minister of the gospel. He wants to give Timothy the tools to be completely equipped to carry on the work of the Lord.
For example, Paul instructs Timothy to preserve the oral preachings of Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14) and to pass on and entrust these teachings to other good men (2 Tim 2:2). If Paul was trying to make the point that Scripture was sufficient, why would he instruct Timothy to carefully preserve and pass on the oral teachings?
So Timothy has Paul’s oral teachings, the abstaining from wickedness, and the Scriptures to help make him perfect, complete and “useful to the master”. Keeping in mind that Paul's letters did not originally have chapter and verse markings, these tools that Paul gives to Timothy follow one after the other quite nicely in the letter. Context is always important.
Sola scriptura is not a simple belief. There are many assumptions that are built into it. For example, you seem to assume that all the apostles taught orally was eventually enscripted into the Bible. Most of the sola scriptura assumptions can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I would like to step through these underlying beliefs that make up sola scriptura and be like the noble Bereans and compare them to Scripture.
Westminster Confession of Faith
I…Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased...
Where does the Bible teach that all of Divine revelation was committed wholly unto writing?
2 John 1:12
I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.
3 John 1:13-14
I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.
1 Cor 11:34
If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.
It specifically says John and Paul did not write down all of their instructions. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the side that claims it was committed wholly to writing.
Where does it say the oral teachings would cease?
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Westminster Confession of Faith
II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.
Where does the Bible say which books are inspired? Where does the Bible say the first gospel was written by Matthew? Who determined which books would be in the Bible? How was it determined?
Westminster Confession of Faith
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
What does the Bible say?
2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Or do we need teachers to help us understand the Scripture?
Luke 24:25-27
He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Acts 8:28-31
and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.
Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
Westminster Confession of Faith
VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
Were the Scriptures kept pure in all ages? Since Peter calls Paul’s letters “Scripture”, do we really have all the Scriptures kept pure in all ages?
1 Corinthians 5:9
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—
Where is this letter to the Corinthians that was written prior to "First" Corinthians?
Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.
Where is Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans kept pure in all ages?
Westminster Confession of Faith
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
What does Jesus say?
Matthew 18:17
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
These are some interesting questions. Please feel free to share your thoughts with me. I always enjoy sharing views with others who come at an issue from another viewpoint.
I did enjoy reading your article. I especially noted how carefully you quoted those from the opposing view. It is rare to find someone willing to accurately and fairly portray the other side. Thanks.
Yours in Christ,
Joe Bloch
ME:
Dear Joe,
Thanks so much for taking the time to read and analyze the article. Obviously, you’re passionate about understanding what should be regarded as the rule of faith. I appreciate the comments on trying to be fair in my representation of the Roman Catholic position. You’ve noted correctly. In fact, this particular article was born out of an interaction I had at work with someone giving some good reasons for her Catholicism. She gave me a number of books and tapes that I really tried to extract the strongest arguments presented for the Roman Catholic notion of authority. I’m very aware of the possibility that someone will show that my representations or arguments are flawed. It’s with this, I welcome your feedback.
I’ve tried to respond to each section of your email. I look forward to your response.
1. 2 Tim 3:16
2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
You’re correct that the referent of the term “adequate” is the man of God. I’m not sure, however, that you are correct in asserting,
“It does not follow that because the man of God becomes sufficient, that the Scripture is sufficient.”
You feel that one can claim that Frank’s Furniture Farm may be said to be profitable to perfectly/completely furnish one’s house, even though they only carry bedroom furniture. The shopper then will go to Allen’s home furnishings to supplement what Frank’s place was unable to provide. In the same way, we may say that Scripture is profitable to completely furnish a believer, but we will need to supplement what Scripture lacks to truly furnish the believer.
I’m having a hard time following this line of reasoning. Let’s say Tom Sikes, the owner of Frank’s Furniture takes out an ad in the paper declaring, “Everything you need to furnish your house completely is found in my store.” However, as you walk in you find that he only carries Bedroom Furniture. Clearly, Tom Sikes has misrepresented what his store could do. Certainly, Tom’s Store has everything you need to furnish your bedroom, however, a house has a bathroom, dining room, etc. His store is profitable for partial furnishing, but not complete furnishing.
Now let’s say that you confront Tom with this apparent disparity of products offered and products present. Tom says, “You’ve failed to read the small print.” The print reads this way: “Everything you need to furnish your house completely is found in my store, provided that your house is already possesses everything except a bedroom set.” At this point, we chide Tom in the way that he’s pitched his services. Either he’s really bad in handling the English language, or he’s just bad.
This seems like the rebuttal that you’ve offered. Even though Paul says that when a man comes to the Scriptures, he finds everything he needs to be properly equipped to live a life pleasing to God, Paul is writing this knowing that his readers we’re well aware of that conditional clause, namely,
When a man comes to Scripture, he finds everything he needs to be properly equipped to live a life pleasing to God, provided that this man already possesses the oral traditions, church authority, etc...
I insist that as with Tom’s advertisement, Paul has cast the function of Scripture in a highly misleading way (using hyperbole when he shouldn’t). Or put differently, I think your interpretation of the passage (if it’s anything like Tom’s conditional clause) is alien to the passage.
Now when Paul says Scriptures are profitable to y, the y is simple stated as a believer, not a believer who must first be equipped with other things, which when added to Scripture, he becomes furnished. No, just a believer instructed by Scripture, may experience it’s benefit or profitability in being sufficiently equipped to life a godly life.
2. 2 Tim 2:19-21
2 Timothy 2:19-21 19 Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness." 20 Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.
Of this passage, you state,
If abstaining from wickedness and cleansing oneself from evil is able to make one “prepared for every good work”, then using the same reasoning you used for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 it would follow that this would be “sufficient” and the Scriptures are not necessary at all.
In the essay, I address this objection found in different form. My answer is just as applicable yours:
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura doesn’t mean that Scripture is necessary and sufficient for everything. In other words, we readily admit that even though Scripture is necessary and sufficient for x, it may be necessary and not sufficient for y. For example, we maintain that although Scripture is necessary and sufficient as a guide to live a godly life, it is insufficient as to whether or not I live a godly life. For, in addition to the guide, I must add my will. To use an analogy, a compass is sufficient to guide me to the north pole, but it is insufficient in actualizing my trip to the north pole. There are all sorts of other conditions that are to be met in the actualization of this trip. As it pertains to living a godly life, we don’t believe in Scripture alone (we believe in Scripture + God’s grace + human volition). But certainly that doesn’t take anything away from the sufficiency of Scripture as a guide to live a godly life. In the same way, even though there is need for an interpreter doesn’t take away the necessity and sufficiency of Scripture as a guide.
Now in 2 Timothy 2:21, the context clearly is living the godly life (it’s not dealing with possessing a guide on how to live a godly life). On my view, a man or women is thoroughly furnished for every good work by Scripture in that he or she has these good work’s delineated for them in Scripture: Scripture says that a believer should do such and such, and avoid such and such, etc… However, a man or a women who despite having this type of information, persists in ungodly behavior and is polluted with immorality, is of course ill-prepared from being used by the Lord. The preparation of 2 Timothy 2:21 is moral (obedience to the word already received). The preparation of 2 Tim 3:16-17 is informational - teaching, instruction, reproof, training in what is to be regarded as righteous, or what things are to be “abstained from.” My explanation of 2 Tim 2:21 in relation to my interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16-17 is nothing like “The Tom Sike’s Conditional Clause.” It’s a distinction suggested by basic reason.
Let me illustrate by using Allen’s Home Furnishings. Let’s say that Allen has literally everything to furnish one’s home. Let’s further suppose that Allen also has put out an ad which reads like this:
“Enjoy a fully furnish home by shopping at Allen’s Home Furnishings.”
Now, although this isn’t worded in the best way, nevertheless, Allen could never be successfully sued for false-advertising because he doesn’t actually provide the house as well as the furnishings. It’s a basic to assume that the house isn’t included in the furnishing. In the same way, it is basic to assume a number of conditions related to the equipping of a believer that are categorically different the sufficiency presented in 2 Tim 3:16-17. Here are a few.
• A believer cannot be a deaf mute – that is his or her sense perception must be working in such a way as to have access to the content of Scripture.
• A believe cannot be in a comma for him to do the good works that God’s word fully equips him for
• A believer must be attentive to God’s word in order to do the good works that God’s word will fully equipped him for.
• A believer must be obedient to God’s word in order to do the good works that it spells out for him.
The list could be long. The point is that we need to be aware of categorical differences that do not affect what I claim as what is particularly sufficient about scripture.
By the way, this applies to the particular cocktail of authority esteemed by Roman Catholics as necessary and sufficient for a believer’s life of godliness. We might say that Scripture, Tradition, and the Church Magesterium and necessary and sufficient for a believer living a life fully equipped, provided that:
• A believer cannot be a deaf mute – that is his or her sense perception must be working in such a way as to have access these things.
• A believer cannot be in a comma for him to do the good works that the Church fully equips him for.
• A believer must be attentive to God’s word, the church, tradition in order to do the good works that God’s word will fully equipped him for.
• A believer must be obedient to God’s word, the church, and tradition in order to do the good works that it spells out for him.
These are conditions that are categorically different then what is claim by the church as sufficient for a believer.
3. Oral Traditions
You say,
“For example, Paul instructs Timothy to preserve the oral preachings of Paul (2 Tim 1:13-14) and to pass on and entrust these teachings to other good men (2 Tim 2:2). If Paul was trying to make the point that Scripture was sufficient, why would he instruct Timothy to carefully preserve and pass on the oral teachings?”
Elsewhere you say,
Sola scriptura is not a simple belief. There are many assumptions that are built into it. For example, you seem to assume that all the apostles taught orally was eventually enscripted into the Bible.
We’re both aware that no particular church was in possession of all the 27 books of the NT ( many of them had not yet been written at the time Paul is writing to Timothy). We’re also both aware that no particular church was in possession of all of Paul’s letters (though some were encyclical – passed around to churches in a region). Given this fact, I find it easy to image a case in which someone like the Colossians, who possessed the letter by that name, weren’t privy to the contents of the letters written to the Corinthians, or vise versa. Timothy, however, was in all likelihood familiar with most of what Paul had written due not only to the likelihood of hearing these teachings verbally, but maybe also due to the access he had to Paul’s actual writings. And so Paul enjoins the young Timothy to share this content to his audience who were deprived of a compendium of Paul’s epistles. So, let’s say Timothy visits the Colossians, who faced some particular controversy that is dealt with in an epistle they’ve never had access to. Timothy is told to pass on and entrust these teachings as he comes into contact with those depraved of his epistles. Scripture remains sufficient.
I think this also addresses the other passages that you raised:
2 John 1:12
I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.
3 John 1:13-14
I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.
1 Cor 11:34
If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.
Why assume that “further directions” will differ substantially with the rest of the Bible? In the case of the Corinthians, could Paul have wanted to exposit in more detail the nature of the Passover as found in the Torah?: An exposition that would not have added anything substantively different from the rest of Scripture?
By the way, I don’t think the burden rests on the Protestants on this point, but on the Roman Catholic.
It specifically says John and Paul did not write down all of their instructions. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the side that claims it was committed wholly to writing.
Though I don’t mean to lump you with the Mormon religion (I’m only using this example to talk about burden of proof), but they claim to have revelation that supplements Holy Scripture. Now in this case, both the Mormon and the Christian believe the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, but the Mormon also believes that their literature is to be added to “canon.” Now is it your burden to prove that Mormon Scriptures don’t belong to canon, or is it theirs to prove that it does. I think it is clearly their burden to prove that the book of Mormon, Doctrine of Covenants, and the like were the oral traditions that Paul wanted Timothy to pass along to supplement Scripture. And in the same way, I think it’s your burden. At this point, you might recall my comments on this in the article:
Let’s say that our Catholic friends are not convinced by our arguments so far. Let us even grant that Scripture alone isn’t sufficient. With these two hypothetical concessions, one might think that Catholics have won the debate; Catholic tradition does supplement Scripture. But not too fast! Even if we were to give in, we are far from establishing the assertion that “Catholic tradition supplements Scripture.” Why not “Gnostic tradition supplements Scripture?” Or, “Greek Orthodox tradition supplements Scripture?” This list grows large at the prospect of various “traditions” held by various groups. My point is that the burden of proof resides upon Catholics to show us that any one tradition can be traced back to the disciples and the Lord. That is, Catholics must show us that the traditions that supplement Scripture most assuredly come from Christ or the Apostles. But, of course, this is where Catholics reveal their true playing hand. Ultimately, Catholics believe that any one tradition is authoritative because the Church Magisterium deems it so (with or without historical verifiability). So, in some sense, Roman Catholics believe in sola-ecclesia (the church alone), for both Scripture and Traditions are defined by the Church.
4. Miscellanies –
I’ll respond briefly to a number of questions that you seem to assume the answers are obviously in your favor. In order to answer these questions properly, I need you to provide a little more meat in the points suggested by the questions.
A. Canonicity:
“Where does the Bible say which books are inspired? Where does the Bible say the first gospel was written by Matthew? Who determined which books would be in the Bible? How was it determined?”
OK. So what’s the point? I assume you know that these are questions that protestants have addressed. So, what conclusions are you drawing from these questions that lead you to jettison the protestant notion of Scripture and authority??
Have you read this section of my article entitled “The Argument from the Composition of the Canon.” If so, maybe you can comment on how I handle a particular angle of this issue.
B. The Gift of Teaching
“Westminster Confession of Faith
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
What does the Bible say?
2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Or do we need teachers to help us understand the Scripture?”
I don’t see the contradiction that you imply.
Certainly, the basic notion of the gospel is clear enough for a child to understand. The things that are necessary to understand are clear enough even for the average person (as opposed to the professionally trained clergymen), in a due use of the ordinary means. In such a use, they may attain to a sufficient understanding of them. Peter’s solution to this isn’t the installment of professional clergymen who preclude average believers from examining Scriptures (enter the Bereans). At the very least, Peter is encouraging believers to handle God’s word carefully.
As with my comments on 2 Tim 2, I would further argue that the appointment of teachers in the church doesn’t take away from the sufficiency of Scripture. A teacher’s responsibility is not to supplement the text with content that cannot be found in the text. I view the responsibility of the teacher to exegete (draws out what is already contained in the text) Scripture. So he is taking Scripture that is a sufficient rule of faith, and expounding the content therein.
C. Extra-Biblical Apostolic Writings:
“Were the Scriptures kept pure in all ages? Since Peter calls Paul’s letters “Scripture”, do we really have all the Scriptures kept pure in all ages?
1 Corinthians 5:9
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—
Where is this letter to the Corinthians that was written prior to "First" Corinthians?
Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.
Where is Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans kept pure in all ages?”
Again, can you give me the proposition that you derive from the fact that there are extra biblical apostolic writings that undermine my fundamental thesis. Why assume that the content of these books differed in a substantive way from the rest of the canon? Why assume that the content of these books has been preserved by the Roman Catholic Church?
D. Church Authority
Westminster Confession of Faith
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
What does Jesus say?
Matthew 18:17
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Again, what does this passage imply that would preclude a church, who held sola scriptura and denied sola-ecclesia, to properly administer church discipline?
Joe, thanks so much for your thoughtful considerations. I look forward to your response.
Jake
