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.

7 reasons Protestant anthropology is to be rejected

(If you want to double your effectiveness as a Catholic apologist in 30 minutes, read this article.)

Anthropology refers to the study of human nature in general, but within the context of theology it refers to man's nature as it corresponds to his final goal, his abilities, and the effects of Adam's sin. This subject is indispensable in forming good theology, especially when discussing salvation, because if you get this subject wrong, you'll likely get salvation wrong as well. As an analogy, if a medical doctor fails to understand how the body functions, he will most likely fail to properly diagnose and treat the ailment. Well-informed Catholic theologians have understood this and explained why incorrect anthropology is at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. Luther's decision to reject the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church came ultimately as a result of him severely erring on his view of human nature, and thus turning that into an erroneous view of salvation. From an apologetics point of view, any discussion with a Protestant is bound to fail if you don't understand that each side has issued a radically different "diagnosis" to the "illness" mankind finds himself in after Adam's disobedience. 

"Call no man Pastor" - a fresh look at Our Lord's prohibition.

In seeking to 'refute' the naive Protestant attack of appealing to Our Lord's instructions to "call no man father" (Matthew 23:9) as a prohibition of calling a priest "father," most Catholics have fallen into an entirely 'defensive mindset' and thus failed to apply this teaching at all. Typically, a Catholic will point out how this instruction cannot literally mean don't use the term "father" in reference to biological (Mt 15:4) or adoptive (John 6:42) or spiritual fatherhood (Rom 4:11-12; 1 Cor. 4:15), but once they've 'disarmed' the Protestant they feel their duty towards this verse is finished. In reality, the lesson from this verse is as important as ever, particularly with the rise of Protestantism.

I have become increasingly disturbed over the past few years as I stop and realize how much sway Protestant "pastors" have within the culture at large. This is disturbing because of the nature of their authority: it's ultimately self-appointed. I cannot think of any (functional) system in which the human authorities are self-appointed, and yet this is precisely a cornerstone of Protestant ecclesiology. Millions of people, including Catholics, have the mindset that just because someone is a "pastor" that they are entitled respect and even some level of submission. I write this having had that mentality until recently, only now realizing how dangerous and anti-Christian it is. And I realize now this is the true context in which Our Lord said "call no man father," meaning do not bestow titles of religious authority upon usurpers and detractors from God's true leaders.

The definitive Paul vs James debate: the end of Protestantism is near!

I happened across one of the most astonishing admissions in the history of Reformed Protestant scholarship. One of the most renowned Reformed scholars, Dr. Buchanan, said this in his 400 page tome, The Doctrine of Justification:

'There is not in all the Scriptures,' says one [opponent], 'an instance in which one man's sin or righteousness is said to be imputed to another. There is not in all the Bible one assertion that Adam's sin, or Christ's righteousness, is imputed to us; nor one declaration that any man's sin is ever imputed by God or man to another man. Having followed (the Hebrew and Greek verbs) through the concordances, I hesitate not to challenge a single example which is fairly of this nature in all the Bible.'

These are bold statements, and may seem to imply a denial of the doctrine, as well as a criticism on the term, by which it has been usually expressed; but we refer at present only to the latter. Every reader of his English Bible, without the aid of critical scholarship, may discover,—and it has never been denied, so far as we know, by any competent divine,—that the verbs in question are applicable to cases, in which that which is imputed to any one was personally his own beforehand,—that one man, for instance, who is righteous, is reckoned and treated as righteous; and that another man who is wicked, is reckoned and treated as wicked. But the question is, Whether the same verbs may not be equally applicable to other cases, in which that which is imputed to him was not personally his own, and did not previously belong to him, but became his only by its being put down to his account?

The debt due, and the wrong done, by Onesimus to Philemon, were not chargeable against Paul personally or previously, but he became chargeable with them simply by their being imputed to him: 'If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account,' or 'impute that to me;' 'I will repay it.' In like manner, 'He, who knew no sin, was made sin for us,' and 'bore our sins in His own body on the tree,'—not that our sins were chargeable against Him personally or previously, but they became His by imputation on God's part, and voluntary susception on His own. If it be said, that the mere word 'impute' is not employed in this case, it may be asked, whether there be any other which could more accurately express the fact, if it be a fact; and whether the word itself is not used in a parallel case, when God is said 'to impute righteousness without works,' as often as 'He justifieth the ungodly?' (Part II, Lecture XII, Proposition XVII)

This quote is astonishing for in it contains a hidden admission that Protestantism is founded upon a grand scam, one of the greatest cover-ups in Christian history. This admission by Buchanan actually surpasses the admission by Dr Albert Barnes (which I also commented upon Here).

Buchanan starts off by quoting an opponent who claims that the Bible never teaches: (a) Adam's sin was imputed to us; (b) Christ's Righteousness was imputed to us; (c) our sins were imputed to Christ. Further, the opponent claims there is not a single example of the Biblical Greek or Hebrew terms for "impute" ever being used in such manner.

"These are bold statements," Buchanan admits. And Buchanan says this for good reason: this claim, if true, refutes the entire doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.

Notice how Buchanan proceeds to "address" this objection. He begins by admitting that the term "impute," as used in Scripture, is often applied to situations where someone is imputed (or reckoned) to be (or have) something that he actually was (or actually did have). In his words, the Bible uses "impute" in such a way as to say someone who is actually righteous is reckoned and treated as righteous. The only question, Buchanan proceeds to raise, is whether "impute" is used to mean something is imputed to someone that doesn't actually belong to that person. Here is where the great scam takes place.

As Buchanan's sole and definitive proof that the Bible uses "impute" to support the Protestant position, Buchanan references the situation of Philemon 1:18, where Paul tells Philemon to "charge" (impute) any debts of Onesimus to Paul's account instead. What Buchanan hides from the reader (recall he said this was basic enough for a layman reading an English Bible) is that the term for "impute" in Philemon is the Greek word ellogeo, which is only used one other (non-relevant) place in Scripture! In other words, this isn't even the same Greek word for "impute" - the Greek word logizomai - that the New Testament uses almost 40 times, and which Paul uses about 30 times, including when speaking of "reckoned as righteousness". It is a classical scam of bait-and-switch: starting off speaking of one issue, but then shifting the focus onto a second (unrelated) issue.

By Buchanan's own admission, though totally indirect, he couldn't even come up with a true counter-example to what his opponent originally charged. And if that wasn't enough, he "concludes" by admitting that even though the term "impute" is never actually used in the cases of Adam's sin to us or our sin to Christ, we none the less can assume (fallaciously begging the question) that this concept is taught using other language. I've seen this very same argument and logic used by Charles Hodge, James White, and William Webster, to name a few.

When I say this is one of the biggest cover-ups in Christian history, I don't say that lightly. This is about scholars who end up shamelessly hiding the truth, even in the midst of unwittingly admitting their Justification thesis is bad, and in a desperate attempt to defend it they end up employing the most absurd and false arguments. This information is so damning that as the word continues to spread, more and more 'aware' Protestants will leave Protestantism, while their apologists will eventually have to face up to these facts as well. It is because of issues like these that I believe we are living in the last days of Protestantism.

Help spread the word!

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.

List of teachings Protestants cannot agree upon due to Sola Scriptura.

The following is a 'open' list of teachings (subject to further expansion) which Protestants cannot agree upon due to the doctrinal relativism caused by Sola Scriptura. Though many Protestants today would "solve" this problem by tossing a lot of these into the "non-essential" category, I believe the doctrinal issues I've mentioned have been clearly seen to cause division among Protestants:

1. Once Saved Always Saved
2. Universal versus Limited Atonement
3. Infant Baptism
4. Form of Baptism (e.g. full immersion vs pouring)
5. Whether Baptism is necessary in ordinary circumstances
6. Whether the Lord's Supper is purely symbolic or some sort of 'real' presence
7. Divorce and Remarriage
8. Whether icons/pictures of Christ are allowed
9. Which doctrines are perspicuous/essential
10. Whether Charismatic Gifts of the Spirit have ceased
11. Whether instruments are allowed in church
12. Female ordination
13. The "biblical" form of church government
14. Sunday versus any day worship / Whether the Sabbath is still in force in some sense.
15. House churches versus dedicated congregational churches
16. Dispensationalism
17. Rapture/Tribulation
18. Imputed Active Obedience
19. Whether traditional categories like Person/Nature are true/valid
20. Mary being "Mother of God"
21. Mary's Perpetual Virginity
22. Whether Inspiration of Scripture is plenary or limited to faith and morals
23. Whether one can/should pray to the Holy Spirit
24. Whether Sola Scriptura applied during the time of Christ and the Apostles
25. How to define/understand Sola Scriptura, especially as it relates to Creeds and Councils
26. Should Christians engage in politics, civil service, etc. 
27. Whether Christians should pray the Our Father
28. Whether prayer should be only spontaneous
29. Whether keeping the Commandments is necessary for salvation
30. Whether illness, suffering, poverty, etc, are due to sin or lack of faith
31. Whether Free Will and Double Predestination are true or not
32. Whether Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11, etc, are actually part of Scripture
33. Which translation of Scripture should be normative (e.g. KJV)
34. Which Protestant denominations are to be considered "Christian"

Feel free to mention some other examples in the comment box!

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.

Are Catholics Interpreting Scripture without Magisterial Authorization?

There is a frequent charge by Protestants that whenever a Catholic presents Scriptural evidence for any particular doctrine, rather than engage the passage in question and interpretation of it, the Protestant simply responds by saying something to the effect, "is that your private interpretation, or did the Magisterium infallibly interpret this verse for you?" The intent is to neutralize the Catholic argument by re-directing the issue onto that of infallibility.

This Protestant "response" is simply misguided. It fails to distinguish and understand the Catholic approach to Scripture and the Catholic objection to the Protestant error known commonly as "private interpretation." The truth is, both Catholics and Protestants are guided by a teaching traditionally called the Analogy of Faith (the classical meaning of the term 'analogy' is 'proportion' or 'rule'). The Analogy of Faith is the teaching that all theological interpretation must be done in harmony with the Church's defined doctrines. This means that the Church doesn't need to infallibly interpret every single passage of Scripture, but rather only needs to set up certain 'parameters' (i.e. dogmas) from which to read Scripture in light of. One of the preeminent examples - which both Catholics and Protestants would readily agree upon - of the Analogy being used is the quote from St John's Gospel where Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I." Knowing that the Church teaches Christ is a Divine Person with a Divine and human nature, the Analogy of Faith tells us that we cannot interpret Jesus' saying in such a way as to contradict that dogma.

The point of real divergence is that Protestants don't have a definite way of establishing dogma, where as the Catholics do (via the Magisterium). The result is that Protestants have less definite 'parameters' to operate within, leading to widely divergent interpretations of Scripture. That said, the Protestant Dogma of Sola Fide (Justification by Faith Alone) is the most important unique 'parameter' when it comes to Protestants interpreting Scripture. A good example of a Protestant using their own Analogy is when they approach James 2:24, in which the Protestant knows they must interpret this passage so as to not contradict Sola Fide.

Back to the original point: when a Catholic presents a text of Scripture to demonstrate or prove a given concept or teaching, they need not have a specific Magisterial interpretation of that verse, since the Church allows doctrines to be demonstrated or defended in any legitimate manner - particularly by applying the Analogy of Faith.

The issue of infallibility (i.e. authoritative interpretation) comes into play when defining the dogmas in the first place. A classic example of the need for authoritative interpretation (aka infallibility) is when examining the Biblical phrase "This is My Body." While the phrase is perfectly intelligible, what is not "clear" is whether this is to be taken literally, figuratively, or somewhere in-between. While many modern day Protestants would say the actual interpretation is ultimately "non-essential" to salvation and thus one is free to hold any view, historically Protestants have had bitter disputes over how to view this saying. Generally, the Anglicans and Lutherans hold to a mostly literal view, the Calvinists hold to a view between literal and figurative, and the Baptists hold to a mostly figurative view. Since none of these views directly contradict Sola Fide, the Analogy doesn't help one way or the other, and ultimately an authoritative interpretation (by a Magisterium) is necessary to settle the dispute.

At this point, only the Catholic position makes sense, since the Catholic position openly affirms the existence and necessity of a Magisterium. If Sola Scriptura were true, then Scripture alone would have been clear enough to settle the dispute. As it stands, Scripture is not formally sufficient, as the "This is My Body" example plainly demonstrates.

Council of Nicæa Proves Papacy

The Papacy is one of the most decisive (and divisive) issues in Christendom, particularly in determining whether or not the Catholic Church is the One True Church. While much can be said as far as the Scriptural support goes, the testimony of Tradition is just as powerful in this regard, most notably the testimony of the early Ecumenical Councils.

At this point many Eastern Orthodox and Protestants would object, saying that the Councils actually suggest the opposite, namely that the Bishop of Rome did not have the authority Catholics claim. One of the leading examples appealed to is the 6th Canon of the Council of Nicaea, which says (quoting only the most relevant portion):

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.

Now there is some slightly different translations of certain terms of this canon, but this rendering is generally accepted. Reading this canon for the first time, many get the impression the Bishop of Rome is simply one bishop among others with no unique authority, directly undermining the notion of Papal Supremacy. This is the common take on this passage by Eastern Orthodox and Protestants.

The problem the Protestant is in is that even if their rendering were correct, the fact remains that this canon clearly teaches the Bishop of Rome has some high ranking authority, with the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch on some sort of equal footing. In other words, the early Church (as testified by this most important Council) was clearly one of a hierarchy of bishops, including very high ranking bishops - something totally incompatible with Protestantism. The only thing the Protestant can do is to ignore this Council and embrace an inconsistency of accepting the Council as orthodox Christianity but ignoring all the history and details of the Council (including the canons). This is indeed why many Protestants have no problem brushing off Nicaea or any other Council in favor of "Scripture Alone" (i.e. as soon as a "difficulty" arises, any part of any Council can be dispensed with).

But there is yet another detail here that is plain upon even a surface reading, and that is that this is a custom/tradition. Now if Nicaea took place in 325AD, it is no leap of faith to suggest this custom/tradition extended back at least 2-3 generations of Christians (if not further, as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would suggest), meaning this custom goes back easily 75-100 years (again, if not further, which there's no reason to deny). This means there was an acknowledged bishop of Rome, with this authority, easily dating back to 225AD. Now if the last Apostle (St John) died around 90AD, and any given Protestant is going to suggest the Papacy is an apostate invention, then this means Christianity had to have gone apostate in under 150 years.

While the Eastern Orthodox would not deny the Bishop of Rome Traditionally had high authority (as many historical Christian testimonies prove), even being the "first among equals" (an uninspired and fictitious phrase invented by anti-Papal advocates) when it came to the (three) Patriarchs (i.e. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch), there still leaves the issue of whether this canon suggests Primacy or rather Roman subordination to this Council (and equal authority among Bishops). That the Bishop of Rome is looked to as a "standard" here in this canon is itself good evidence that the Bishop of Rome was not merely "first among equals" with no true superior authority. But that's only granting the anti-Papal interpretation of the canon!

What is the Catholic interpretation of this canon?

To answer that question, Catholics have made the following argument, masterfully stated in this article. Here is the essence of the argument:

• To render Canon 6 along the lines of: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch [with his own separate jurisdiction]" is nonsense; it's the non-sequitur fallacy: it doesn't follow nor fit with the (territorial) claims being made in regards to Alexandria.

• The only reading that makes sense is something along the lines of: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since it is the tradition of the Pope to grant Alexandria this jurisdiction." This directly connects to the first clause, and the reasoning and force of the argument is that the authority to which it is appealing to (i.e. Rome) is sufficient to settle the matter.

This obviously entails two things: the Council submitting to the traditions of the Pope (Bishop of Rome), and a clear primacy over the other two Patriarchs (and by extension all bishops of the Church). This refutes Eastern Orthodoxy.

*          *          *

Update: 5-12-12

I just found another great piece of evidence to supply to this argument. In the Second Ecumenical Council (i.e. Constantinople 1), about 50 years after Nicaea, here is what was said in Canon 2: 

Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers.

This Canon is most certainly calling to mind Canon 6 of Nicaea. Yet notice that there is no mention of Rome among the two giants of Alexandria and Antioch. This strongly supports the claim that Rome has no boundaries, and thus Canon 6 was indeed not putting Rome as on par with Alexandria and Antioch. 

And to drive this point even further home, notice what Canon 3 of Constantinople 1 says:

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

So here Rome is mentioned, and it clearly is shown to be the head, as even the man-made See of Constantinople (with no ancient customs and no apostolic roots) is said to be in second rank. 

In short, these two Councils did not dare to infringe upon the rights and prerogatives of Rome.

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: Formal versus Material Sufficiency

There is a very critical distinction which Catholics must always keep in mind when discussing the topic of Sola Scriptura. This distinction determines whether the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true or not. The distinction is "material" versus "formal" sufficiency of Scripture.

On his wonderful blog, Dr Michael Liccione was having a discussion with a Protestant systematic theology professor on this very subject. The Protestant professor succinctly explained the difference between the two understandings of Scripture (highlights by me):

The difference here is between a blueprint to make a building, and the bricks of which the building is made. A merely materially sufficient Scripture is like a pile of bricks that can build anything from a cathedral to a tool shed, but the bricks themselves possess no inherent intelligibility (formal sufficiency) in one direction for another. The intelligibility derives from outside the bricks. Conversely, a blueprint is inherently intelligible, and thus has not material but formal sufficiency to create a specific building, whether cathedral or tool shed.

In terms of development, the claim that Scripture is materially sufficient presumes that the intelligibility of revelation derives from elsewhere than Scripture itself. A definitive magisterium (or external tradition) is necessary to decide what to do with the bricks. Without the magisterium it is impossible to know whether the bricks were intended to be a cathedral or a tool shed.

The distinction here makes all the difference in the world. From a Protestant point of view, anything less than formal sufficiency is unacceptable and will render Sola Scriptura impossible. On the flip side, the Catholic has no problem affirming the material sufficiency of Scripture (i.e. all necessary information is at least implicit in Scripture), since it in no way rules out the need for a Magisterium - and indeed demands one!

This is important to keep in mind because it makes the Protestant task of proving Sola Scriptura from the Bible more difficult and uncomfortable. It is not enough for the Protestant to point to a text that says how good or useful or inspired Scripture is, since the material sufficiency gladly embraces all this. The Protestant must show that Scripture formally and clearly lays out Christian teaching in such a way that no Magisterium or Tradition is needed, and in fact must show that the Magisterium and Tradition dont exist in the first place (or wont exist at some future date).

What is also important to point out is that the great majority of Scripture is not written down in any "blueprint" sense such that the Inspired human writer was laying down a systematic treatment of doctrines. In other words, the Bible is not written like a text book or even a 'do it yourself' self-help book. This is a major difficulty for the Protestant seeking to prove formal sufficiency.

Take the example of Baptism: If Scripture were formally sufficient, it would have to lay out in a very systematic manner what effects Baptism has on the individual, whether it is required, who can be Baptized, and how to Baptize. Contrary to the formal approach, what happens in real life and throughout history is that theologians of both the Protestant and Catholic camps have had to "derive" various doctrines like Baptism piece by piece, starting with the explicit references to baptism, then any allusions to it, and then the support of related doctrines, all to come to their final conclusions on Baptism. As everyone is aware, there is no such systematic treatment of Scripture on this teaching - and as everyone is equally aware, Protestants have disagreements on every one of those facets mentioned (e.g. whether infants can be baptized).
Given this very solid example against the notion of formal sufficiency, we can have great confidence that no specific passage will ever teach formal sufficiency (since the Scriptures cannot contradict or mislead).

Probably the most famous - and most important - example that contradicts formal sufficiency is all the heresy surrounding the Trinity. As Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong explains: "The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."

Other examples (among many) that contradict the notion of formal sufficiency are especially those texts discussing interpretation of OT prophecy, which the NT shows was very often missed by the Jews who knew the OT quite well. The Road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-27), the Bereans (Acts 17:1-5,10-12), and Apollos (Acts 18:24-26) demonstrate the problem quite well.

One last important thing to note (as apologists like Mark Shea and Dave Armstrong point out) is that when one affirms the material sufficiency of Scripture, there is no "fear" of "undermining" the authority of Scripture or "subordinating" the authority of Scripture with Tradition or Magisterium - fears which Protestants regularly inject in such discussions. The reason why there is no such "fear" from the Catholic end is because material sufficiency by *nature* means Tradition and Magisterium are necessary to arrange the "bricks" in the right order to form the right structure. That "fear" can only exist if the Protestant can demonstrate formal sufficiency to be true - and until then is fallaciously fear mongering.

Sola Scriptura Debate - Concluding Essay by Gerry

Sola Scriptura Debate - Concluding Essay 

by Gerry

All right, so we are in the concluding part of the debate. I want to thank my opponent Nick for being an courteous and respectful opponent. Let's thank him also for his insights in this discussion. We hope that the two of us are able to give the readers enough information to consider each others point of view.

First of all let's evaluate Nick's responses to my 5 questions:

On the requirement to give one apostolic tradition that is proven to be originating from the Apostles, necessary for salvation, and not found in Scripture, Nick replied that the question is tricky but he did give an answer:

If I had to give an answer, I’d say the teaching of the Canon of Scripture would fit within Gerry’s three parameters. The 73 books which the Catholic Bible contains is (a) a teaching of the apostles, (b) necessary for salvation as far as one is aware they are bound to affirm this canon, and (c) does not have (sufficient) support in Scripture to determine. To clarify on “c,” while some books in Scripture are called “scripture,” others are not, so a book like Jude would have to be known as “Scripture” by a purely extra-biblical teaching.

Gerry asked that I “prove” this answer. The proof is in the fact that all Christians, including Gerry, accept more less the same canon of Scripture (though the Protestant canon is missing books).

I have heard many Roman Catholics, including Patrick Madrid, give the same response. Unfortunately the response failed to consider a few but major things. For one, an apostolic tradition should have originated during the time of the apostles. But in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 (which is their favorite verse against Sola Scriptura), Paul mentioned that the traditions have been what? Already delivered (past tense). So Nick's timing is off. In addition, how can I as a Protestant be his proof wherein my brethren rejects the Deuterocanonicals?

Furthermore, how come it took the Church of Rome more than 1,500 years to settle the canon at Trent? The New Catholic Encyclopedia has this entry:

"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p.390).

This question was Nick's grand opportunity to refute Sola Scriptura by giving an apostolic teaching not found in Scripture, and he blew it. While the canon is indeed not mentioned in Scripture, it cannot exist without the creation of Scripture because it measures and reveals what has been inspired.

On his response to the dreaded James White Question, Nick says Inspired Oral Tradition. I said the question was dreaded because up to now no Roman Catholic apologist has ever given a scholarly answer, let alone logical. His answer can be negated by asking, "Well, how does a Jew fifty years before Christ know which oral traditions are inspired?" Nick's answer is susceptible to a series of "how do you know what you know" kind of questioning. Roman Catholic boasts that they have an infallible magisterium to rightfully tell them what the Scriptures are, but how does that work during the Old Testament when Christ wasn't even incarnated yet? If the Jews managed to correctly identify the Scriptures without an aid of an infallible magisterium like Rome's, then I don't see why that is necessary in the present time.

On his response concerning the basis of his reliance on the church he belongs that rightfully tells him what the Scriptures are, it is no surprise that Nick answered it with a precedent with how his church would have wanted him to answer: the presence of an infallible magisterium. For what basis does he say that a church should have an infallible magisterium to be considered as the true church? And why did he limit his choices to three? For all we know the Mormons could be correct that there was indeed a total apostasy and that there four other books which we didn't dare to consider. What about Watchtower? The point of this question is to refute the idea that the church, specially Nick's church, made the canon. With all the churches today claiming to be founded by Christ, how does one can tell with certainty that this particular church holds the true knowledge of Scripture? In my analysis, Nick's answer is a variant of "my church tells me so".

On his response if his church gave an official interpretation to all verses in the Bible and traditions, he gave an honest answer that his church did not do so. Isn't it ironic that he tells us that the Scriptures are only materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. Claiming to have a 2,000 year pedigree, why didn't Nick's magisterium interpreted all the verses so that everyone will know all the teachings very clear? Roman Catholics have long criticized Protestants for their contradicting interpretations - all because of sola scriptura so as they accuse. Folks, do not believe that the Church of Rome is united in their interpretations because they are not. I know Roman Catholic apologists who interpret verses differently against a fellow Roman Catholic apologist. If the Scriptures are not sufficient then Nick church, in its claim of apostolic succession, should have addressed this problem... 2,000 years ago.

Lastly, on his interpretation of 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 17, he gave this comment:

But as verses 3:10-14 (and throughout 1 & 2 Timothy) we see Paul’s living testimony and oral teachings contribute to those qualities as well. This ties directly into Paul’s immediate instructions following in 4:1-5. People must take care when reading 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that they don’t rip it out of it’s context and make it more than what it really is focused upon.

In his exegesis of 2nd Timothy 3:16 on the part of "all Scripture", while Nick does not deny the inspiration of the New Testament he argues that the verse pertains only to the Old Testament. and Timothy should made use of oral teachings that Paul also taught him. The weakness of this kind of exegesis is if we substitute the words Old Testament it would appear that "the Old Testament makes the man of God thoroughly equipped unto all good works". That doesn't sound what Paul really intends to mean. In 2nd Peter 3:14-16 we read Peter's endorsement on Paul's gospel:

So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 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.

So when Paul said "All Scriptures" in verse 16 it is a general statement.

Nick did not give a thorough analysis of verse 17: so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Nick didn't even address this properly his rebuttal. This last verse completes the thought of verse 16. If the Scriptures are not sufficient, how can Paul say that the man of God is thoroughly equipped to do all good works?

Let's now wrap this up:

In my opening statement, I challenged my opponent to give me another rule of faith so that Scripture alone is really not alone. Nick failed to do this. In the cross examination, I asked my opponent to give me an apostolic tradition not found in Scripture. Nick also failed to do this. It is not enough to argue that the Bible does not support Sola Scriptura. If someone argues that Leah is the only wife of Jacob, doesn't common sense tell you that in order to refute that argument you just simply point to Rachel and give proof that she is also Jacob's wife? I don't see why Sola Scriptura could be any different.

My opponent utilized a strawman argument that Christ and the apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura because the Bible wasn't complete yet. If Nick were to abide by this standard then praying the rosary should be considered as a false practice because the Marian mysteries has not been completed yet. As I admitted, Sola Scriptura is temporarily inoperative when God is giving new revelations. But when God is not giving any revelations, all we have that functions as his authoritative voice are Scriptures.

The Scriptures are inspired by God to be profitable to teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness so that the believer is perfectly fitted to do all good works. We do not see any apostle referring us to another rule of faith.

I will leave you with a quote from Athanasius:
"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth." (St. Athanasius, Against the Heathen, I:3)

Thank you and God bless us all!

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.