Appreciating the "traditions of men" that Jesus condemned

In the infamous passages of Matthew 15:1-11 and Mark 7:1-22, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for teaching "traditions of men," which Protestants claim rules out "Catholic oral tradition". The Catholic response to this Protestant accusation is understandable, but also unfortunately surface level. When texts are misunderstood in the first place but never corrected, then what typically happens is that these texts turn into 'surface level apologetic' passages that never get studied at all. In this specific situation, Protestants would allege that the Pharisees randomly began taking on all sorts of random teachings and inventing a new religion, instead of simply following the Bible alone for their theology. Such a shallow reading of the text would warrant us to take a step back and see what was really being said here.  

Before looking at the verses itself, the first surface level rookie mistake Protestants make is to think that Jesus was teaching that any doctrine not written on paper is automatically not from God and cannot carry any authority. That Protestant claim is obviously wrong by the simple fact Jesus never wrote anything down and that Jesus taught 'orally' throughout His ministry. Many periods of Salvation History involved teaching being passed down orally, such as the command to circumcise given to Abraham and not written down for hundreds of years later until Moses. With that out of the way, we can now approach the passage with a different mindset.

Here is St Mark's account of the situation, which I trim down for brevity:

Is Peace (Shalom) unconditional in the Bible? (Romans 5:1)

Protestant apologist James White has a few claims he regularly brings up against Catholicism, and which many Protestants blindly repeat. The two most common claims I've seen him make are asking Catholics "who is the Blessed Man of Romans 4:8?" and "Roman Catholicism cannot provide the true peace which the Gospel provides us". White says in his book and website (see here):

There can be no doubt what lies behind Paul’s use of the term peace in this [Romans 5:1] passage. The Hebrew steeped in Scripture knew full well the meaning of shalom. It does not refer merely to a cessation of hostilities. It is not a temporary cease-fire. The term shalom would not refer to a situation where two armed forces face each other across a border, ready for conflict, but not yet at war. Shalom refers to a fullness of peace, a wellness of relationship. Those systems [e.g. Roman Catholicism] that proclaim a man-centered scheme of justification cannot explain the richness of this word. They cannot provide peace because a relationship that finds its source and origin in the actions of imperfect sinners will always be imperfect itself. The phrase "we have peace" [Rom 5:1] in regard to God, properly means, God is at peace with us, his wrath towards us is removed.

This all sounds well and good, but all too often it turns out that things that sound good to human ears are often not actually what the Bible teaches (cf 2 Tim 4:3). White's lack of Biblical analysis in his presentation of how the Bible uses the term "peace" was suspicious to me, so I decided to see for myself how the Bible uses the Greek/Hebrew terms Peace/Shalom (here). Does the Bible speak of Peace/Shalom as something that is permanent and unconditional the way White makes it out to be? Here are some texts I've found that use the same Greek/Hebrew term "peace" as in Romans 5:1 that I think cast serious doubt on White's bold assertions: 

Were "those whom God foreknew" the OT saints? (Rom 8:29)

While writing my article on Romans 11:6 (here), something jumped out at me in Romans 11:2, where Paul says: "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." This statement sounds very similar to a few chapters prior, in Romans 8:29, where Paul famously says: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son". While I've already discussed Romans 8:29-30 in an older post (here), I haven't looked at it through this "foreknow" lens, so I'll do that today.

In the context of Rom 11:2, the "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew" is clearly referring to the Israelites, at least those who were faithful, as the prior verse 11:1 asks "has God therefore rejected his people?" as he then lists off marks of Israelite identity. Using the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture," would suggest that the Israelites of Rom 11:2, "his [chosen/elect] people," at least the faithful ones, are who Paul has principally in mind in Rom 8:29 when he says "those whom He foreknew". In other words, Rom 8:29-30 is actually focused on the Old Testament saints. Others have suggested this is what 8:29 means, but now that I've come across this link to Rom 11:2, I now think the claim has better merit.

If the OT Saints are in view in 8:29, this would better explain why Paul speaks of "those" instead of "us/we" whom God foreknew. It would also better explain why God puts the "called, predestined, justified," and "glorified" all in the past tense, since it would mean the OT Saints already experienced these things. We could even say Paul's repeated use of "also" is to suggest the OT saints "also" experience these blessings along with the NT saints, thus Paul isn't so much speaking of a chain of events, but rather simply saying every blessing the Gentiles experience in Christ, the OT saints "also" experience them. Given the context of Romans 8:29 being about enduring suffering, calling upon the example of the OT saints is an excellent lesson for Paul to draw upon, since we have historical proof of OT saints having to endure trials, and see how God helped them get through it. And, finally, since Paul is concerned about Jew-Gentile tensions, it helps to show the OT saints are blessed, so that the NT saints don't feel superior to them.

Lutherans and the Canon of Scripture

Lutheranism and Anglicanism have always baffled me because their approach to major Protestant doctrines like Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) do not seem to be honest with the basic meaning of these slogans. For example, Lutherans (and Anglicans) hold that Baptism doesn't interfere with Faith Alone in the slightest, whereas most other Protestants see Baptism as a "work" that undermines Faith Alone. When it comes to Sola Scriptura, both Lutherans and Anglicans will freely embrace all kinds of "Catholic traditions" that aren't directly derived from the Bible, and yet claim these do not contradict Sola Scriptura. For example, the Lutheran and Anglican Liturgies are clearly stripped down versions of the Catholic Mass. The same sorts of Catholic prayers, sign of the cross, vestments, Calendar of Saints and Holidays, etc, are not found directly in the Bible and yet are a central aspect of their worship. This is both a good and a challenging thing for Catholic apologetics. 

Ultimately, I think it is good that Lutherans and Anglicans are 'inconsistent' on Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, because it helps prove the Catholic case that these slogans are effectively meaningless and impossible to defend or define once we scratch the surface. With that long introduction, I think I've set the stage for this post. 

Just when I've thought I've seen it all, I come across something astonishing that I'd never imagined could happen. As I was reading the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Lutheranism the other day, I came across an astonishing passage:

Lutheranism acknowledges six specific confessions which distinguish it from other churches: the unaltered Augsburg Confession (1530), the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531), Luther's Large Catechism (1529), Luther's Catechism for Children (1529), the Articles of Smalkald (1537), and the Form of Concord (1577). These nine symbolical books (including the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed) constitute what is known as the "Book of Concord", which was first published at Dresden in 1580. In these confessions the Scriptures are declared to be the only rule of faith. The extent of the Canon is not defined, but the bibles in common use among Lutherans have been generally the same as those of other Protestant denominations.

So called "Confessional" Lutherans are those who hold that the "Book of Concord," a collection of their most authoritative documents, is the supreme Confession for what it means to be a true Lutheran. Quite often, the writings of the Book of Concord do not follow what Luther himself taught, and thus Lutheranism actually rejects many of Luther's teachings (e.g. his extreme views on Predestination and rejection of Free Will, his view of polygamy, his view that souls sleep after death rather than going to heaven). What really stood out to me though was the claim that Lutherans have not defined the Canon of Scripture anywhere within the Book of Concord, which is a few hundred pages long! Could it really be that Lutherans do not have a defined/closed Canon of Scripture? That seems outrageous, so I had to look into it more. 

Baptism according to Scripture. (Do Protestants Really care about the Bible?)

In the course of my apologetics, I've come to the astonishing conclusion that it doesn't seem Protestants really care about what the Bible has to say. They don't do this intentionally, but when it comes to many Biblical doctrines, I've found in my own interactions and with reading their major theologians, that they have a very bad habit of leaving out key details when formulating doctrines. And when you confront them, they just shrug it off and have no real interest in what the Bible says. In this post, I will list all the Biblical verses that refer to the Sacrament of Baptism and let readers see what the Bible plainly has to say on the matter. I have yet to find any Protestant who has actually sat down for half an hour and read through the 25 or so verses that mention Baptism to see for themself what the Bible says. Rather, they will only quote a few verses and just go with whatever their denomination or pastor says. When I ask them to just read these verses, they act like I've asked them to deny Christianity.

I think the best way to educate yourself is to actually read the Bible for yourself, and since there are only about 25 short verses to read (texts with a * indicate the term "baptism" isn't used), this should take you less than 30 minutes to get fully informed on the matter. I will then briefly analyze the data. In the Conclusion, I will speak about the general Protestant view of Baptism contradicts the Bible, while showing that the Catholic view is fully in line with Scripture.

How Protestants violate Paul's instructions on married clergy. (1 Timothy 3:2)

Protestants often bring up 1 Timothy 3:2 against Catholicism's rules on married clergy. Protestants say that Paul plainly says a Minister must be married, and thus Catholicism must use "traditions of men" to enforce celibacy to get around Paul's requirement for Church ministry. The irony here is that Catholicism actually does follow Paul's rules, and it is Protestants who pretty blatantly violate them. Let's first take a look at the passage in question and then I'll show why Protestants don't take the Bible as seriously as they think they do.

1 Timothy 3: 2 Therefore an overseer [Pastor/Minister] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.

The first thing to note is that Paul is talking about candidates for ordination here, Paul is not talking about those already ordained. This is important because Paul is saying that the married man who seeks ordination must already be married and he must already have children (note the plural). Nothing in this text indicates someone already ordained can still get married later on, and yet Protestants teach someone who is already a Pastor can still do these things after ordination. In fact, Protestant seminaries typically consist of young men studying for ordination, and of these young men a good number of them aren't already married, and an even larger percentage of them don't have children (note the plural) yet. Thus, Protestants are blatantly violating Paul's teaching here, all the while thinking they are following Paul's teaching. So Protestants should be careful when using this verse against Catholicism, because any Protestant seminarian who is not married, or married without more than one child, or even infertile, is thus prohibited from ordination based on their own Protestant logic!

Was the 'one bishop per city' model of church leadership an unbiblical corruption by Catholicism? (A brief look at the monespiscopate)

One anti-Catholic argument I'm seeing come up more and more frequently is the claim that Scripture describes church governance (polity) as done by a plurality of elders/bishops who are co-ruling over a city/church, whereas the notion of authority concentrated into the hands of one elder/bishop ruling over a city/church is a later invention. The goal of this anti-Catholic argument is to suggest the office of Papacy grew out from this earlier one-bishop (monepiscopacy) corruption of true Biblical polity.

The Protestant/Liberal argument is basically this: in the New Testament, the term "bishop" ("elder") is always used in the plural, and that it wasn't until AD150 that the monepiscopate (i.e. one bishop per city) model arose in some places. At first, this claim seems to have some plausibility, but looking at it with the right glasses on will reveal the desperation of these Protestant/Liberal folks to do whatever they can to smear Jesus' one and only Catholic Church.

The first thing I noticed about this anti-Catholic argument is that it claims this major heresy arose as "late" as 75 years after the Apostles died, around AD150. It is unlikely that such a significant error would arise that early on, only to be universally embraced by even the great Church Fathers, and nobody to oppose it. Further, this small window of time doesn't leave much room for a fair look at the evidence, since the early Christian writings for this period are minimal. This kind of argument is essentially based on the Liberal/Protestant notion that Christianity as we know it was invented over the centuries by the workings of men, who corrupted Christ's simple teachings early on and invented basically every doctrine we now affirm. If it can be argued that Christianity is a series of inventions, like the monespiscopate, then this leaves Christianity with little credibility before the world. It's sad that Protestants would want to go there, but Liberalism is quite literally an outworking of this kind of Protestant thought. Just looking at the Council of Nicaea in AD325, which historically Protestants pretend to accept when Catholics aren't looking, in Canon 6 it explains there is a head bishop in Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome - the three biggest Christian metro areas. Are these Protestants seriously going to say Nicaea espoused both orthodoxy and heresy? Sadly, many Protestants would rather throw out Nicaea than grant any points to Catholicism. I call this the ABC mindset - Anything But Catholic - wherein an opponent of Catholicism would rather accept the most absurd conclusions (e.g. throwing out Nicaea) rather than admit Catholicism got something right.

Was there really no Bible until the year AD381?

I'm writing on an urgent matter that I think needs to be addressed within Catholic apologetics, namely the widespread Catholic claim that there was no Bible until Pope Damasus gave us the canon of Scripture in AD381. At best, this is a half truth, and at worst this is an implicit heresy and undermines Christianity. While it might score points against Protestants during a Sola Scriptura discussion, it's a bad argument that does far more harm than good. 

The problem with the "no Bible until 381" claim is that those who make the claim typically have in their mind that in the early Church - sometime after the Apostles died (~AD80) and up to 300 years later (~AD380) - there was mass confusion as to what books were Scripture and what weren't, such that the Pope had to call a Council to settle the matter by sifting through a massive pile of books, some which were inspired and some which were uninspired, and the "result" was the canon of Scripture. This mindset suggests that the Bible wasn't something passed onto us by Tradition, but rather something that was basically invented. The Pope most certainly did not walk into a library and start reading random books and try to "detect" if this or that book should be in the Bible.  In fact, this false 'personally feel out if this book is inspired' method is closer to the Protestant and Mormon approach to the canon of Scripture.

Why Head Coverings blind Protestants.

I think I've formulated a new apologetics argument that should prove fun and (hopefully) fruitful when talking with Protestants. Basically, the way Protestants view the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist is similar to how Paul describes the reason for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. The result of this line of thinking would not only force Protestants to make Baptism indistinguishable from Eucharist, but also to 'raise' Head Coverings up to the level of a new Sacrament in itself. Let's see where this goes. 

Is Imputation taught in 2 Corinthians 5:21?

Protestants consider 2 Corinthians 5:21 to be one of the chief Biblical proof texts for for their doctrine of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ. In fact, they put so much emphasis on this verse that a lot of their credibility hangs on it. Given this, I want to provide Catholics with some key information on what to say when speaking with a Protestant on this crucial text, because if you can stop them in their tracks here, you'll have gone a long way towards causing them to rethink everything about their own position and what Catholicism has to offer them.

Southern Baptist Professor tells how the books of the New Testament were chosen.

Protestants are an interesting bunch. On one hand, they radically distrust Church history, on the other hand they rush to appeal to Church history when it suits their needs. This is especially true for Baptists, who stand alone against 99% of all Christians (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Catholicism) on the issue of infant Baptism, which means history is an extremely unreliable guide in the Baptist mind. Confirming this, Baptist John Piper wrote an astonishing article last year on how Christians today are on a more sure foundation doctrinally because we have the complete Bible, where as the early Christians did not. Just a few days ago, a Baptist professor named Timothy Jones wrote an article explaining how the New Testament canon was formed. Unlike Piper, who wasn't opposing any errors in general, Jones has to defend the NT canon against an apostate (and now anti-Christian) apologist, Bart Ehrman. The sole defense Jones has to appeal to is, ironically, the testimony of the Early Church Fathers - which, in turn, refutes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Does the Letter of 3rd John refute Protestantism?

The 3rd Letter of John is one of those interesting books of the Bible that everyone knows is there but pays little attention to. Being the shortest book of the Bible (with only 219 Greek words; 2nd John having 245, and Philemon having 335), one can wonder how much significance it has. Glossing over it, you see the standard stuff found in the rest of the New Testament, but since it's so brief it naturally it gets neglected. But could 3rd John actually contain information that knocks-out Protestantism in one punch? I believe so.

Daniel Wallace: "There is no Protestant Ecclesiology" - Can Ecclesiology be a "Non-Essential" for Christians?

A Catholic friend sent me a link to a recent blog post titled The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology, written by Dr Daniel Wallace, a Reformed Protestant who is a professor and Greek scholar. The post is short enough that I will be able to quote "long" portions that highlight his frank admissions that all Protestants will have to come to terms with some time or another.

I am unashamedly a Protestant. I believe in sola scriptura, sola fidei, solus Christus, and the rest. I am convinced that Luther was on to something when he articulated his view of justification succinctly: simul iustus et peccator (“simultaneously justified and a sinner”).

But with the birth of Protestantism there necessarily came a rift within the western church. By ‘necessarily’ I mean that Protestants made it necessary by splitting from Rome. Jaroslav Pelikan had it right when he said that the Reformation was a tragic necessity. Protestants felt truth was to be prized over unity, but the follow-through was devastating. This same mindset began to infect all Protestant churches so that they continued to splinter off from each other. Today there are hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations. One doesn’t see this level of fracturing in either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Not even close.

Traditionalist Thoughts on Women's Head-Coverings (with an interesting tie-in to Sola Scriptura)

One very unpopular (and thus often forgotten about) subject that has recently caught my attention is the Christian teaching on head-coverings for women. This subject is unpopular because the underlying subject matter is so repugnant to our modern culture. I have always thought the practice of head-coverings was pious and traditional, but mostly done for reasons of modesty and aesthetics. Most males are aware of how distracting and (unfortunately) tempting it can be when women dress immodestly for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But recently I found out there was more to the practice, much more, which touched upon very relevant theological matters.

The practice of women wearing head-coverings goes all the way back to the earliest days of the Church. Though I was aware that St Paul spoke on the practice, I didn't realize the context from which he was framing his lesson was theological.

An array of Reformed tetimony of the ahistorical nature of Sola Scriptura

The following are quotes from well known Protestant Apologists teaching publicly on the subject of Sola Scriptura and admitting the ahistorical nature of it:

• James White: The main element of [Catholic apologist] Mr. Ray’s misrepresentation of sola scriptura can be seen in just this: the doctrine speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? One will search high and low for any reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that says, “There has never been a time when God’s Word was proclaimed and transmitted orally.” You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, “See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!” Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did? (Source) 

•  William Webster: The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. (Source)

 

• Joe Mizzi: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age. (Source)

 

• R.C. Spoul Junior: The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. ... ... Sola Scriptura is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon. Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. (Source)

 

• John Piper: Beware of imputing advantage to antiquity. Seventy years after the death of Jesus the churches had neither the collected New Testament nor a living apostle. It was a precarious and embattled time. Neither the experiences nor the teachers of the first 300 years of the church are as reliable as the finished New Testament. The church did not rescue the New Testament from neglect and abuse. The New Testament rescued the early church from instability and error. We are in a better position today to know Jesus Christ than anyone who lived from AD 100 to 300. They had only parts of the New Testament rather than the collected whole. That’s how valuable the fullness of revelation is in the finished Bible. Beware of idealizing the early church. She did not have your advantages! (Source) 

 

• John MacArthur: Jude 3 is a crucial passage on the completeness of our Bibles. This statement, penned by Jude before the New Testament was complete, nevertheless looked forward to the completion of the entire canon: Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. ... ... Also important in Jude 3 is the word "delivered." In the Greek it is an aorist passive participle, which in this context indicates an act completed in the past with no continuing element. In this instance the passive voice means the faith was not discovered by men, but given to men by God. How did He do that? Through His Word--the Bible. And so through the Scriptures God has given us a body of teaching that is final and complete. (Source) 

 

• John H. Armstrong: Further, no true advocate of the supreme and final authority of Scripture would assert that the immediate hearers of the preaching of Jesus, or the apostles, were free to pick and choose what they would submit to since they did not receive it in written form. What is asserted in believing that Scripture alone has final and full authority is this: God revealed His Word orally and temporarily through prophets and apostles and then subsequently through the inscripturated text. Oral communication, in this post-apostolic era, is powerful precisely because it relies so faithfully on the "more certain" word of Scripture itself. Thus we conclude, with the Apostle, himself a faithful preacher, "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). (Source)

 

• Robert Godfrey: [Catholics] will try to say that the phrase “the Word of God” can mean more than just the Bible. I have already granted that. The question before us is whether today anything other than the Scriptures is necessary to know the truth of God for salvation. The Scripture texts I have cited show that nothing else is needed. Our opponents need to show not that Paul referred to his preaching as well as his writing as the Word of God — I grant that; they need to show that Paul taught that the oral teaching of the apostles would be needed to supplement the Scriptures for the Church through the ages. They cannot show that because Paul did not teach that, and the Scriptures as a whole do not teach that! (Source)

 

• Greg Bahnsen: The Word of God, which was originally delivered orally, needed to be reduced to writing in order for the rest of God’s people to know about it and for it to function as an objective standard for faith and obedience. Where God had spoken by personal address orally, if that was going to be a standard for the Church at large (for all of God’s people), that oral instruction (as authoritative as it was in itself) needed to be reduced to writing so that it would be an objective standard that governed all of God’s people... God’s Word needed to be inscripturated to govern His people through all generations. (Source)

 

Why are these admissions so significant? Because in each case the Protestant is admitting that Sola Scriptura was not practiced in the Apostolic age of the Church; the Apostles didn't go around teaching Christians to engage in Sola Scriptura in word or epistle. Why? Because, as the above quotes show, the full canon of Scripture didn't exist at the time, making the practice of Sola Scriptura functionally impossible. It would be like saying we can write a dictionary (a 'word bible' so to speak) without first having and knowing all 26 letters of the alphabet. To read "Sola Scriptura" into any passage of Scripture would be anachonistic by definition. Thus, whether these well respected Protestant preachers truly realize it or not, by their own logic Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, ahistorical, and unapostolic.

John MacArthur fails to "deliver" on Sola-Scriptura

One of today's most outspoken and harshest critics of Catholicism is Reformed pastor and televangelist John MacArthur. Unfortunately, I think he spends too much time and effort condemning Catholics without actually backing up his words. But even when he does back up his accusations, this brief article will show just how absurd (and sometimes embarrassing) his attempts at refuting Catholicism can get. This article will focus on MacArthur's claim to uphold Sola Scriptura in the midst of his attempts to discredit Catholicism. Two relatively recent articles on his official webpage (each from 2009) are "Does God Still Give Revelation?" and "Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 3" (which is the most important of the 3-part series). I will quote from each of those apologetics articles, highlight key phrases, and comment upon any points I believe are worth addressing.

Note to John Piper: Don’t Equate Whole Bible with Theologically Accurate

John Piper - a man I generally respect, though don't often agree with theologically - made some embarrassing comments on his blog in a brief reflection he posted on January 19. The title of his post is: "Don’t Equate Historically Early with Theologically Accurate" The post is short enough that I feel it's worth posting here in full:

Beware of imputing advantage to antiquity. Seventy years after the death of Jesus the churches had neither the collected New Testament nor a living apostle. It was a precarious and embattled time.

William Webster's astonishing claims about Sola Scriptura

William Webster is a popular Reformed Apologist who has published many articles online. He is very blunt when it comes to defending Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, which is an approach I admire because one should be confident when doing apologetics for the position they deem to be the correct one. I recently came across one article of his on Sola Scriptura that was too important to not comment upon. Him being one of the more well known Protestant apologists, I was shocked at the foundational claims he made for his position.

Sola Scriptura Debate - Concluding Essay by Nick

Sola Scriptura Debate - Concluding Essay 

by Nick

This is my final essay for the debate. It will consist in commenting on Gerry’s answers to my cross examination, addressing issues that I feel were not adequately covered, and a final thought.

Also, I would like to also thank Gerry for taking the time to go through with this debate, and that I appreciate the mutual respect we have had for each other throughout this debate.

Comments on Gerry’s Cross Examination Answers:

For question #1, I asked Gerry: “What do you believe are the top 3 passages that most strongly teach Sola Scriptura?”

The three passages he gave were: 2 Timothy 3:16f, Matthew 15:1-9, and Romans 15:4, as well as some brief comments as to why he chose these passages.

I asked this question because I felt it would help clarify and settle the issue more decisively. If I (and the audience) know what Gerry considers the “strongest evidence,” we can more easily examine if the doctrine really has biblical merit or not. Clearly, if the “strongest evidence” doesn’t come close to supporting the doctrine, the doctrine is manifestly false since it lacks the necessary evidence.

I will now look at his comments, starting with Romans 15:4 (“For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”). Gerry’s argument is that since only Scripture is mentioned, that only Scripture teaches information regarding salvation. The context of this is Paul quoting an Old Testament lesson on humility and hope. This verse, to me, is more of truism than the laying out a doctrine: it says, in short, that the Scriptures were given to teach us. All sides strongly affirm this. This says nothing about the Scriptures being the only source of information and teaching. Further, Paul is speaking in the past tense here, referring to the OT, not the NT. If Gerry thinks this “strongly” supports Sola Scriptura, he seems to have proven too much, since it would place full sufficiency on the Old Testament alone (ruling out even Paul’s Romans Epistle). I don’t think it is a stretch to say his passage comes nowhere near affirming or supporting the definition of Sola Scriptura.

Gerry didn’t comment much upon his second proof text, Matthew 15:1-9 (paralleled in Mark 15:5-13). He only said “Christ rebuked the Pharisees using Scriptures.” I was disappointed with this response since in my opening essay I commented upon this very text, so Gerry should have interacted with my comments. The fallacy of the argument can be shown in this example: if I rebuked someone using the book of Genesis, would that imply we go by “Sola Genesis”? No. Something can be a source of authority (which the Scriptures are) and yet not be the sole authority. Also, in places like Matthew 19, Jesus notes that some parts of Scripture are no longer binding and not even ideal, and Jesus proceeds to overturn some OT Scripture. This explicitly refutes the notion only Scripture had authority!
Gerry also made note that Christ calls the Scripture the “word of God,” to imply that only the Scripture are such, but this idea is manifestly false since a simple search of the phrase “word of God” in the NT shows the overwhelming majority of the time it refers not to the Scriptures but to the oral preaching of the Apostles (see 1 Thess. 2:13 for a good example).

From the perspective of one looking to know the “strongest” proof for the doctrine, I consider this “strike two” against Gerry’s thesis. Surely a doctrine this important for everyday Christian life should have stronger Biblical support than this. This is a foundational doctrine of the Christian church, and yet at most the support is special pleading. I say this because I cannot emphasize enough how troubling and problematic this is - IF such a doctrine were really true. For a Protestant, I’m sure they’d reject any other doctrine that was built on such flimsy evidence, so why does Sola Scriptura get such a pass?

Not surprising to anyone, the first and foremost piece of evidence Gerry gave was 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Given that I’ve spoken upon this passage extensively throughout this debate, and given that Gerry introduces no new information nor interaction with my exegesis on it, I’m not sure what I can really say. Gerry says it’s the leading proof for Sola Scriptura on three grounds: (1) because it’s nature (God-Breathed), (2) it’s “usefulness” for teaching, and (3) it’s effect on the man of God, making him “thoroughly equipped for all good works”.
Point 1, while true in itself, doesn’t mean it’s the only inspired source of teaching, and to suggest such would by definition deny the Apostle’s and Christ’s oral teaching was not Divinely Inspired. It’s a question-begging fallacy, and a serious jump to conclusions, to go from a general statement to a particular one (e.g. going from Scripture is Divinely Inspired to saying *only* Scripture is Divinely Inspired). Point 2, again while true in itself, doesn’t suggest it is the *only* source for teaching, and in fact uses the term “useful” as opposed to something more forceful. So this means Gerry is hanging most of his argument on point 3, the “full” equipping of the man of God. At this point, even if I were to grant Gerry’s claim is a possible (or even probable) interpretation, we must realize that *this* possibility is the “strongest” bit of evidence Gerry has for this leading and essential Christian doctrine! That said, Gerry has not properly parsed the passage as I have done twice in this debate, nor has he addressed other problems I’ve highlighted such as “pasa graphe” and others, showing why Gerry’s understanding of this text simply doesn’t work. Lastly, even if the Scriptures did make the man of God thoroughly equipped, that in no way suggests *only* the Scriptures could do this or that any other source was inferior. For example, 2 Tim 1:13-14 Paul explicitly tells Timothy that Paul’s personal oral instructions for Timothy were a “pattern of sound teaching” and that Timothy was to guard this by the special protection of the Holy Spirit! Would Gerry really suggest only Scripture was capable of passing on such dear information to Timothy, when Paul says the contrary right here and elsewhere? Another example, at Paul’s conversion he spent many years in the desert alone receiving direct and intimate revelation from the Holy Trinity concerning all salvation history (cf Gal 1:13-18), which not only fully equips any man, it is the highest method of equipping!

Most devastating to Gerry’s appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is highlighted in the next questions I asked in the cross examination.

For question #2, I asked Gerry: “How do you know what books belong in the Bible?”

As most everyone knows, this is one of the greatest - if not the foremost - difficulties for the Protestant to answer. Gerry’s first words of his response highlight this, when he said: “I know where you're going with this: the Bible does not have an inspired table of contents so if I appeal to an outside source I'm violating Sola Scriptura.” The ramifications are plain: without the canon known, from Scripture, then Sola Scriptura cannot function by definition.

Gerry’s next words were even more telling:
“Well in this present time I know the books in the Bible because somebody taught me. But I don't consider the person who taught me as authoritative. You may conclude that it is by tradition that I know what Scriptures are. In a sense this is true, but I don't go about saying the books in the Bible are this and that because this is what has been taught all throughout generations. Tradition here pertains only to the means of learning what is Scripture, but not establishing the books of the Bible. The Christians of the present time don't need to re-invent the wheel. The question rather becomes how those who first compiled the Bible know which books are to be included?”

This is a plain admission that his knowledge of what books are Scripture came from someone else, and that this can even be called “tradition”. What is disturbing is that he says this “tradition” is neither authoritative nor depends on what has been passed down throughout history. This means that Gerry - by his own admission - is following a non-authoritative and historically independent tradition for the very books he looks to for his salvation! If that’s not a house built on a seriously weak and dubious foundation, I don’t know what is.

Gerry’s other comments are worth quoting in full as well:

“The nature of the Scripture determines which books belonged in the Bible. Since Scriptures are God-breathed it bears a characteristic of God which only those who have a relationship with him can recognize. I have explained this in my rebuttal. This is similar to recognizing a friend even when you are blindfolded. Your friend's non-visual characteristics (e.g. sound, manner of speaking) which you have known due to your relationship will help you recognize him/her.”

This response contains two serious flaws and contradictions with Sola Scriptura. First, no such instructions are given in Scripture as to how to identify which books are Scripture. The Bible gives no definitive criteria for deriving the canon. Second, this method of truth finding is leaving the pages of Scripture, so even if valid and true in itself it violates the definition of Sola Scriptura which teaches one doesn’t need to leave the pages of Scripture to determine such information.

For question #3, I ased: “How do you interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:15?” ["So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed (didasko) on to you, whether by word of mouth or (eite) by letter."]

Gerry’s answer is worth quoting in full:

“As I have explained in my rebuttal, Paul is stating how tradition is taught/passed: orally and in writing. The phrase "by mouth or by letter" is pertaining to "didasko" and not the word tradition. Making it more problematic for you is the conjunction "or" which leaves out room to distinguish tradition. So the actual message is tradition is passed either by speech or in writing.

If you say that there is oral tradition which is different from written tradition, then I challenge you to present me those apostolic traditions which I cannot find in Scripture.”

I’m not sure if I’m misreading Gerry’s response or if there is an actual contradiction in it. He says first that tradition is passed orally and written, which I agree with. He then says the phrase “by mouth or by letter” (i.e. oral and written) pertains to “passing” and not to “tradition”. And finally he says “the actual message” is that “tradition is passed either by speech or writing”. The first and last comments seem to contradict his second (that oral and written doesn’t pertain to tradition).

What I consider most important about his response is his last comment: “If you say that there is oral tradition which is different from written tradition, then I challenge you to present me those apostolic traditions which I cannot find in Scripture.”

As I have said in all my past essays, this is actually a major problem for Sola Scriptura, since it must explain what happened to these oral teachings! There are only two options: either these oral teachings were lost, or they were eventually written down in Scripture. The first option is unacceptable, while the second option is the very thing Gerry needs to prove, from Scripture, for Sola Scriptura to stand. As I noted in my opening essay, the burden is on Gerry here, not me. Gerry cannot just assume these traditions were lost or written down, yet that’s precisely what he’s doing.

For question #4, I asked: “How could Jesus, the Apostles, and early Christians practice Sola Scriptura before all the books of Scripture were written?”

Gerry’s response will be broken up and commented upon. First he said:

“The situation is similar of how could Jesus, the apostles, and early Christians pray the rosary (assuming this is permitted by God) if the Marian Mysteries has not been written yet or the cross and the beads have not been stringed together yet.”

In other words, just as one cannot pray the Rosary if all of the material to make and pray it doesn’t exist yet, one cannot practice Sola Scriptura unless all of the books have been written. Here Gerry admits that Jesus, the Apostles, nor the Apostolic Christians practiced Sola Scriptura, since such was a functionally impossible task and doctrine. This admission here undermines any appeal to Matthew 15:1-9 or 2 Timothy 3:16f as a Sola Scriptura proof text, since Gerry admits Sola Scriptura didn’t take place and couldn’t take place at this time. Paul couldn’t have been telling Timothy to practice Sola Scriptura if it was impossible to practice it. Worse yet, this means Sola Scriptura was a novelty doctrine, it only came about in the post-Apostolic Church!

Gerry continued: “Sola Scriptura is temporarily inoperative when God is giving new revelations that were previously not written. Needless to say, Sola Scriptura does not function when there is no Scripture. I don't think this is something you should rejoice about because it is moot and academic. But when God is not giving any revelation, like in our current time, what operates? Christ quoted from Scriptures that were available at that time and held everyone accountable to it.”

Gerry has all but conceded my points and - without realizing it - refuted his own thesis by undermining key points of evidence for his thesis. Does the Bible speak of times when Sola Scriptura would be non-operative? Or is this another unBiblical assumption that Gerry has to make to support the doctrine?

That Christ quoted from the Scriptures and considered them an authority is irrelevant, since that’s not the issue. The issue is whether Sola Scriptura was and could be practiced at the time, to which the answer to that is a clear “No!”. So Christ could indeed quote Scripture as an authority - without ever having to teach, imply, or practice Sola Scriptura!

Most of the rest of Gerry’s argument is irrelevant, since it fails to realize that the *fact* that Sola Scriptura wasn’t operative at those times means none of that revelation could have been teaching the doctrine.

Gerry concludes by highlighting my original point:

“So if you're going to argue that how could Christ practice Sola Scriptura if the Bible has not been completed, then you're arguing in the wrong time frame. It is much like me arguing how could a Jew who was born during the Old Testament times believe in the Second Coming of Christ.”

Again, the answer is that Christ (nor the Apostles and Apostolic Christians) practiced Sola Scriptura since such was impossible at the time. This means any time Jesus or the Apostles told Christians to do something then and there, they could not have been telling them to engage in Sola Scriptura, since that is impossible and the fallacy of anachronism.

My #5 (and final) question to Gerry was: “If you believe there was orally inspired teaching at one point in time, particularly at the time of the Apostles, how do you know this oral teaching was at some point confined to Scripture?”

Gerry responded as follows:

“My friend, it is God who controls what man needs to learn from Him. Listen to what Isaiah 55:10-12 says, As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

It is God who decided what to reveal, when to reveal, and how to reveal his words.”

How does this in any way address the issue of written versus oral teaching, or more specifically, how the oral would someday be confined to written? It doesn’t. The passage is speaking of how God’s Will is always accomplished, and when He “plans a mission” that mission is always accomplished.

Gerry concluded with:

“Your question is like asking how do I know that all apostolic teachings have been contained in Scripture. That would make Paul a liar when he the said the Scripture makes a man thoroughly equipped for all good works if there are teachings not contained therein.”

Yes, Gerry, that is precisely my question! But I don’t think that would make Paul a liar, unless I was *presuming* Paul to be teaching Sola Scriptura in spite of all the evidence against that assumption! It’s funny that Paul would be a liar here if he were telling Timothy to engage in Sola Scriptura when not all of the Bible was written yet. It would be like a mother telling her child to write an essay when the child had only learned part of the alphabet.

All five of these answers by Gerry address the very heart of why Sola Scriptura is false and unbiblical - and in fact a “tradition of men”. Notice how many assumptions and presumptions Gerry has to make for his thesis to stand, when all the while proving such a doctrine should have been as simple as pointing to a single text of Scripture that says something more or less to the effect, “the Scripture is the only and final rule for Christian faith and practice” - yet we all know that no such Apostolic instructions exist.

I as a Christian don’t buy for a second - and cannot buy for a second - that God would have His Church embrace a teaching with such a flimsy foundation.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:

Gerry’s task was plain and simple: produce clear Scriptural evidence for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I believe Gerry fell way short of proving his thesis on four specific grounds: (a) he did not produce a single, unambiguous text of Scripture for the doctrine, (b) he did not interact with my comments on key Sola Scriptura proof texts, (c) he did not interact with my proof texts for tradition, (d) he did not prove various key assumptions and presuppositions (from Scripture) which he based a lot of his thesis upon.

Conclusion:

Some people might understand this debate to be about a “winner” and a “loser” - but I think that way of thinking is misguided. The purpose of this debate is not so much to “win” or embarrass, but to come to the truth on major issues dividing Christians. I don’t believe so much that Gerry as a person “lost” this debate as I think Sola Scriptura as a doctrine was found to be unbiblical (and thus false). In other words, Gerry defended Sola Scriptura as well as a Protestant could, but since the doctrine itself is in fact false, there is in fact no way of proving it true, and any attempts to do so are bound to fail.

When it comes to accepting a doctrine this critical, the Christian must ask themself if they are accepting the doctrine because it’s really taught by Scripture or for some other (unbiblical) reason. And to make matters worse, neither Christ nor the Apostles nor early Christians practiced the doctrine, which makes the demand for Biblical proof all the greater. Without a compelling case for this critical doctrine, the Christian - in good conscience - cannot accept Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura Debate - Gerry's Response to 5 Questions

Sola Scriptura Debate - Gerry's Response to 5 Questions

Here are my responses to Nick's questions:

(1) What do you believe are the top 3 passages that most strongly teach Sola Scriptura?

Well, as I have presented in my opening statement, 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 17 is the leading proof text because this shows the nature of Scripture (theopneustos), its usefulness (teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness), and the effect on the man of God (thoroughy equipped unto all good works). If Scriptures were not sufficient, should the last word say "that the man of God is partially furnished to some good work"?

Next you have Matthew 15:1-9 which is a parallel to Mark 7:5-13. In this scenario Christ rebuked the Pharisees using Scriptures. Interesting enough to note that Christ equates the Scripture as word of God, Christ did not mention anything else as word of God.

Lastly, though not part on my opening statement, I consider Romans 15:4 as evidence:

For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Paul here does not mention what else were used as a source of teaching salvation. This also in tune to the principle of Sola Scriptura for those in the present time since the Scriptures were written in the past for the hope of the present.

(2) How do you know what books belong in the Bible?

I know where you're going with this: the Bible does not have an inspired table of contents so if I appeal to an outside source I'm violating Sola Scriptura.

Well in this present time I know the books in the Bible because somebody taught me. But I don't consider the person who taught me as authoritative. You may conclude that it is by tradition that I know what Scriptures are. In a sense this is true, but I don't go about saying the books in the Bible are this and that because this is what has been taught all throughout generations. Tradition here pertains only to the means of learning what is Scripture, but not establishing the books of the Bible. The Christians of the present time don't need to re-invent the wheel. The question rather becomes how those who first compiled the Bible know which books are to be included?

The nature of the Scripture determines which books belonged in the Bible. Since Scriptures are God-breathed it bears a characteristic of God which only those who have a relationship with him can recognize. I have explained this in my rebuttal. This is similar to recognizing a friend even when you are blindfolded. Your friend's non-visual characteristics (e.g. sound, manner of speaking) which you have known due to your relationship will help you recognize him/her.

(3) How do you interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:15?

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed (didasko) on to you, whether by word of mouth or (eite) by letter."

As I have explained in my rebuttal, Paul is stating how tradition is taught/passed: orally and in writing. The phrase "by mouth or by letter" is pertaining to "didasko" and not the word tradition. Making it more problematic for you is the conjunction "or" which leaves out room to distinguish tradition. So the actual message is tradition is passed either by speech or in writing.

If you say that there is oral tradition which is different from written tradition, then I challenge you to present me those apostolic traditions which I cannot find in Scripture.

(4) How could Jesus, the Apostles, and early Christians practice Sola Scriptura before all the books of Scripture were written?

The situation is similar of how could Jesus, the apostles, and early Christians pray the rosary (assuming this is permitted by God) if the Marian Mysteries has not been written yet or the cross and the beads have not been stringed together yet.

Sola Scriptura is temporarily inoperative when God is giving new revelations that were previously not written. Needless to say, Sola Scriptura does not function when there is no Scripture. I don't think this is something you should rejoice about because it is moot and academic. But when God is not giving any revelation, like in our current time, what operates? Christ quoted from Scriptures that were available at that time and held everyone accountable to it.

A support of that can be drawn from Matthew 22:29-32:

Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

It's ironic that Christ did not say "have you not read what God WROTE to you" but we find it's "read" and "said". Meaning, after God has spoken His words, people wrote it down as authoritative. After some moments when God is not revealing, the people referred to what has been written.

That has been the practice ever since Moses, whom God spoke with to reveal his laws, died: Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it (Joshua 1:8). And we all know God revealed more things after Moses' death, but people wrote it down so that it can be referred to when God is not making any revelations.

So if you're going to argue that how could Christ practice Sola Scriptura if the Bible has not been completed, then you're arguing in the wrong time frame. It is much like me arguing how could a Jew who was born during the Old Testament times believe in the Second Coming of Christ.

(5) If you believe there was orally inspired teaching at one point in time, particularly at the time of the Apostles, how do you know this oral teaching was at some point confined to Scripture?

My friend, it is God who controls what man needs to learn from Him. Listen to what Isaiah 55:10-12 says,

As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

It is God who decided what to reveal, when to reveal, and how to reveal his words.

Your question is like asking how do I know that all apostolic teachings have been contained in Scripture. That would make Paul a liar when he the said the Scripture makes a man thoroughly equipped for all good works if there are teachings not contained therein.