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.

Sola Scriptura Debate - Nick's Response to 5 Questions

 Sola Scriptura Debate - Nick's Response to 5 Questions

I will now respond to the 5 questions Gerry asked me for the cross-examination portion of the debate:

Question 1:

1. Give me just one apostolic teaching that is proven to be:

a. originating from the apostles;

b. necessary for salvation; and

c. which I cannot find in Scriptures and which your teachers make no reference in Scripture

Please provide your sources for the above question.

Answer to Q1:

Responding to this answer is going to be tricky, since the parameters by which Gerry wants me to answer this question don’t necessarily reflect the way Catholic teaching is presented.

For example, in “b” he wants the teaching be necessary for salvation, but this depends on how “necessary” is being used. The teaching that Christ has a human will and a Divine Will is a true teaching, and binding on those who know about it, but a large percentage of genuine Christians have not heard of this teaching (or heresies associated with it) and are not bound to an explicit affirmation of it. The same can be said in regards to a whole host of Christian doctrines that are true and important but above the level of mainstream Christian understanding.

Another example of why answering Gerry’s question is tricky is because in “c” he says it is to have no reference in Scripture, yet since I believe teachings like the Immaculate Conception have support in Scripture, I cannot use such examples to answer his question. (I hold to a high degree of material sufficiency, in which I believe Scripture gives at least implicit support to almost all Catholic teachings.)

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). How does Gerry determine that Jude is Scripture if Scripture never says that this Writing is “Scripture”? The only way is through oral Apostolic Tradition - the very thing he denies exists and the very thing that disproves his thesis by definition.

Question 2:

2. Since you mentioned an argument about the canon, I would like to ask you the dreaded James White Question: How did the Jews who were born 50 years before Christ know that Isaiah and 2nd Chronicles are inspired? Please note that Christ has not been incarnated at that time, neither was His church founded, and neither was there an infallible magisterium.

Answer to Q2:
I am not sure why this question is to be “dreaded” since I don’t see it as a difficult question at all. The answer is simple: Inspired Oral Tradition. That is the way a Jew knew whether any given OT book was inspired or not. Nowhere in Scripture do we see each Jew individually out to determine whether this or that book was inspired. Rather, they were presented with books and writings from (manifest) human authorities like Moses or another Prophet and they accepted what their superiors said. When it came time for worship, they would hear whatever Books/Scrolls were read as Scripture in the Temple or Synagogue, not stopping to check for themselves if the book was inspired or not. The fact is, this question doesn’t help the Sola Scriptura case at all, since Sola Scriptura cannot answer this very question!

Question 3:

3. Of all the churches that claim to be founded by Christ and claim to know what is Scripture, please tell me what is the basis of your reliance on the church you belong right now is indeed the true church that is rightfully telling you what Scriptures are?

Answer to Q3:
I would first begin to answer this question by looking at the most possible candidates: Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Catholics.

Protestants don’t (generally) claim that their specific denomination was founded by Christ in any tangible way. In other words, most of them (especially in this modern age) would not say Christ founded their denomination and that their denomination is the One True Church to which all other Protestants and Catholics must submit. Because they don’t make this claim, they can’t be the Church Christ founded by definition. In this situation, there is no way to even define what is “heresy,” since no denomination will step up and claim Magisterial Authority to point out heresy and condemn it. For example, is there any Baptist church today - speaking as a authority for all Christians - that teaches infant baptism is a heresy and that to accept it would put one’s soul in jeopardy? I know of none. Someone like Baptist James White would say Catholics are not Christian since they deny Sola Fide, but he would not go as far as say a fellow Protestant of another denomination like a Presbyterian (who do baptize infants) is in heresy (and thus cannot be saved).

Without affirming in an Infallible Magisterium (which Protestants deny by virtue of accepting Sola Scriptura), one cannot be the Church Christ founded by definition. There was clearly a Magisterium in the Apostolic Age, as texts like Matthew 16:18, 18:18 and Acts 15 show, so the Protestant must claim this model died off with the Apostles. Since Scripture doesn’t teach teach this model disappeared, this leaves only the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox left as options.

Part of Gerry’s question said that the Church had to claim what was Scripture, yet I’m unaware of any settled upon canon of Scripture among Eastern Orthodox. For example, the Confession of Dositheos from a major Eastern Orthodox council in the 1600s was affirmed by all five EO Patriarchs and affirmed the same canon of Scripture that the Catholic Church holds. However, many EO don’t believe Dositheos was binding, and thus hold to different canons of Scripture. For example, a major Catechism of the Russian Orthodox is the Catechism of Patriarch Philaret of Moscow (from the 1800s), and it denied certain books (basically the same 7 that Protestants reject) were of the same status to the other accepted Old Testament books and thus not Scripture in the truest sense. Such confusion cannot be part of the Church Christ founded.

This leaves only the Catholic Church, who has openly and continually claimed to be the Church Christ founded and has laid out the Canon of Scripture many times in history, but most formally and infallibly at the Council of Trent (in response to the Protestants tampering with the canon, e.g. when Luther wanted books like James to be of inferior status to books like Romans).

Question 4:

4. Has your church ever gave an official interpretation of all verses in all books of the Bible and all oral traditions? Please expound on your answer.

No, but I don’t see why it would have to. It would be akin to asking a Protestant to list off all the teachings and interpretations of Scripture that are required for salvation. Further, Catholics hold to the notion that most passages of Scripture can be taken in multiple senses (without contradicting eachother, i.e. all true), and thus it would be impractical (if not impossible) to write out all the possible interpretations. Protestants generally deny there are multiple ways Scripture can be taken, as the Westminster Confession 1:9 says, “the true and full sense of any Scripture...is not manifold, but one”. In some instances, the Catholic Church has bound Christians to accept certain interpretations of a given passage, without denying other (non contradicting) interpretations as well.

Question 5:

5. How do you understand 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 17?

Answer to Q5:
In my opening Essay (section 3.A), I explained why 2 Timothy 3:16f cannot be teaching Sola Scriptura as well as a few facts about some of the Greek and properly parsing the text. Since most of that was spent explaining what it cannot mean, I will now turn to what I believe it is saying. The term “Scripture” carries with it the built-in assumption that it is an inspired writing, so I think it redundant to read v16 as “all inspired writings are inspired by God and also profitable” and rather think the proper understanding is something akin to “all Scripture, being inspired by God, is thus profitable.” Many Protestants would agree with this. Given that “scripture” here is in the singular, I take it to mean Paul is saying that every individual book or passage of Scripture, by virtue of its inspiration is profitable - and this is to emphasize that even though not all passages are as helpful and exciting and readable as others, they are still inspired by God. So, for example, Genesis might be more helpful and exciting than Obadiah, but the latter is also inspired by God and thus profitable. While I believe the NT writings are inspired just as much as the OT, I don’t see enough evidence in this passage to grant that Paul was speaking of more than the OT in this context. This is also taking into consideration that there is no indication that this very Epistle of “2nd Timothy” (a private correspondence) was counted as “Scripture,” as well as the fact verses 3:10-14 tell Timothy to follow along in Paul’s footsteps as well as other human teachers rather than to consult their writings (i.e. Paul is by no means telling Timothy to turn exclusively to Scripture).

As I explained in my opening Essay, when verses 16-17 are properly parsed, Paul is saying “Scripture is profitable towards Four Ends (i.e. teaching, correcting, rebuking, righteousness)” and that “these Four Ends fully equip the Man of God.” If Timothy wants to be a well rounded Christian leader, he needs to well trained in doctrine, maintain righteous living, and have the courage to rebuke and correct dissenters. Scripture is very helpful in building these qualities. 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.

Sola Scriptura Debate - 5 Questions for Nick

Sola Scriptura Debate - 5 Questions for Nick

We are now in the cross examination portion. Here are my five questions for my opponent, Nick:

1. Give me just one apostolic teaching that is proven to be:

a. originating from the apostles;

b. necessary for salvation; and

c. which I cannot find in Scriptures and which your teachers make no reference in Scripture

Please provide your sources for the above question.

2. Since you mentioned an argument about the canon, I would like to ask you the dreaded James White Question: How did the Jews who were born 50 years before Christ know that Isaiah and 2nd Chronicles are inspired? Please note that Christ has not been incarnated at that time, neither was His church founded, and neither was there an infallible magisterium.

3. Of all the churches that claim to be founded by Christ and claim to know what is Scripture, please tell me what is the basis of your reliance on the church you belong right now is indeed the true church that is rightfully telling you what Scriptures are?

4. Has your church ever gave an official intepretation of all verses in all books of the Bible and all oral traditions? Please expound on your answer.

5. How do you understand 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 17?

Sola Scriptura Debate - Rebuttal Essay by Gerry

I would like to thank Nick once again for posting his opening statement. The entirety of Nick's argument is found here.

His opening however is quite unusual since it contains rebuttals to Evangelical evidences which should be done in his rebuttals and not on the opening statements. Furthermore, it presented Evangelical evidences which I didn’t present in my opening as evidences and now I am supposed to defend what I didn’t present. I will reiterate this later.

I will only tackle the things Nick said which I find objectionable:

(b) The burden of proof is upon my opponent. Since he has chosen to take the affirmative side to this resolution, any argument assuming Sola Scriptura is true until proven false is begging the question and invalid. Further, this also means that Sola Scriptura doesn’t automatically become true just because a given Catholic doctrine is unproven or even false.

Of course we will not utilize the fallacy of ignorance on this debate as it is unfair to anyone. However, my requirement to refute Scripture alone by presenting another rule of faith is valid and logical. Roman Catholics have attempted without success to refute Sola Fide or Faith Alone by proving that works is also necessary in salvation. So common sense will tell us that to dispute what is “alone” another related item must be presented. And this is what I will hold my opponent for the duration of this debate.

On Nick’s exegesis of 2^nd Timothy 3:16 concerning “All Scriptures:

Based on the Greek grammar of the text, with the word “pasa” generally meaning “every” and “graphe” in the singular meaning “[individual book or verse of] Scripture,” the text most accurately reads “every individual book or verse of Scripture.” It could possibly mean “all Scripture [as a whole],” but that is only a maybe, based on an exception to the general rule. If one doesn’t see the implications of this grammar, the following substitution and analogy should better highlight the problem:

“Every individual book or verse of Scripture is sufficient” is akin to saying “Every individual letter of the alphabet is sufficient for writing any word.”

“All Scripture as a whole is sufficient” is akin to saying “All letters of the alphabet, taken together, are sufficient for writing any word.”

The term “Scripture” (graphe in Greek) is used about 50 times in the New Testament, virtually always referring to the Old Testament as a whole or individual verses or passages of the Old Testament. The only clear exception for any New Testament writing being called “Scripture” is 2 Peter 3:16, speaking of Paul’s Epistles in general as Scripture, but even then that doesn’t tell us which of his writings in specific are included or even if this is what Paul was speaking of to Timothy. (For example: Does 2 Peter 3:16 include Paul's private correspondence to Titus and Timothy? Or what about the 'lost letters' of Paul (e.g. 1 Cor 5:9; Col 4:16) which either were uninspired or are speaking of some other NT work?) Given this, Paul could very well have simply been speaking of only the Old Testament at this point, which doesn’t help the Sola Scriptura case for similar reasons as given in (i) above.  

This is more polemical than scholar. Even if you don’t resort to going to the Greek manuscript, context will tell you that what Paul is telling us the nature of Scripture – God breathed. Common sense will tell you that what is not God-breathed is not Scripture.

On the allegations that the apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura, Nick put malice in Dr. James White:

What is important to point out, as many have done, is that James White has effectively conceded Sola Scriptura (especially via 2 Timothy 3:16f) is functionally impossible and thus false. Since 2 Timothy 3:16-17 applied during a "time of enscripturation," it couldn't have been teaching Sola Scriptura without falling into the fallacy of anachronism (that is, reading back into a text a historically impossible detail). The truth is, the Protestant can only speculate as to when the last NT book was written and when. Many NT Scholars actually say Revelation was the last book to be written.

James White is telling us what is moot and academic. Do we expect an Old Testament Jew to believe that Christ built a church wherein that period Christ wasn’t born yet? Let’s presume that all Roman Catholic doctrines are true, can a Jew during the Old Testament time believe in the Assumption of Mary or do they pray the rosary? Of course not. Mary wasn’t born yet and the New Testament Magisterium wasn’t established yet. The same is true for Scriptures. If God is giving new revelations, we should listen. As I have mentioned in my opening, Sola Scriptura does not deny that the Scriptures were once spoken. But what do we do when God is not giving any new revelations? Christ holds everyone accountable to their deeds in the light of Scripture.

(iii) The term “sufficient” doesn’t actually appear in 2 Timothy 3:16, and rather the term is actually "profitable" (which is a much ‘weaker’ term). A Protestant might read the text as 'Scripture is [or must be] sufficient to fully equip the Man of God', but that’s a jumping to conclusions and improperly parsing (i.e. splitting up) the text.

I need not refute any further as I made no such argument. What I did make is to explain the relationship of verses 16 and 17.

Nick made rebuttals on some proof text Evangelicals used in favor of Sola Scriptura:

(b) Acts 17:11. It is often claimed that the Bereans of Acts 17 exemplified the teaching of Sola Scriptura since they “examined the Scriptures daily” to see if Paul’s teaching was indeed “biblical”.

(c) 1 Corinthians 4:6. The phrase “do not go beyond what is written” is taken by some to mean ‘do not go outside the pages of Scripture for your doctrines’.

(d) John 20:30-31. This verse is taken to mean that even though Jesus did and said many things, only what was sufficient for salvation was written down, and thus Scripture Alone is all that the Christian needs.

(e) Matthew 4:1-11. The argument is that since Jesus turned only to Scripture and quoted it as the highest authority, that Sola Scriptura must be true.

As I mentioned earlier, I didn’t use the above verses as evidences. Therefore, I am not required to answer Nick’s rebuttal. I believe this is a technicality.

(f) Mark 7:5-13. It is often claimed that here Christ definitively rejected tradition in favor of Scripture alone.

This reading is very problematic for a variety of reasons. First of all, the “tradition” Jesus condemned was a human tradition, not inspired tradition which the Apostles passed on before any NT writings came into being. These “traditions of men” were condemned precisely because they overturned other commandments of God, not even simply because they were “traditions”. These “traditions of men” were more akin to something resembling Sola Scriptura than anything else, for the “tradition” condemned here was having one Scripture trump another, namely the command to stay true to your donation vow (Numbers 30:2) with the command to honor and support your parents. Jesus only condemned two traditions, the “Corban Rule” and the “Unwashed Hands”, which is hardly a warrant for saying Jesus condemned tradition in general.

In short, this passage was not a blanket condemnation of any and all tradition by any means, yet that is precisely the oversimplified definition one must project onto the chapter for it to support Sola Scriptura. 

Although I did not quote from Mark 7:5-13, it is nevertheless a parallel to Matthew 15:1-9.

Unfortunately for Nick, that’s not how the Evangelical argument goes. When Christ was rebuking the Pharisees, he used the Scriptures. He didn’t quote from any oral tradition which cannot be found in Scripture. Christ didn’t even say, “Hey, your magisterium does not approve of that tradition!”

Now for a more serious discussion, Nick presented his arguments against Sola Scriptura:

(a) Christ nor the Apostles engaged in Sola Scriptura. In section 3.a.ii it was shown why Christ and the Apostolic Church couldn’t go by Sola Scriptura, the Bible wasn’t complete yet. All throughout the Gospels, Christ is introducing new doctrines and information that wasn’t written down (until later) and the same can be said of the Apostolic preaching throughout most of Acts. Also, Christ never told the Apostles to write anything down nor that He would leave a book behind for future generations.

I already refuted a similar argument earlier. A Jew during the Old Testament time is not expected to believe in the second coming of Christ. Why? Christ hasn’t been incarnated yet.

(b) The canon. The Protestant position presupposes what books belong in Scripture, without sufficient Biblical evidence. Without the (proper) canon of Scripture, Sola Scriptura cannot function. To argue something along the lines of ‘Matthew is inspired because it was written by the Apostle Matthew’ is already leaving the pages of Scripture. This kind of information can only ultimately come from inspired Oral Teaching.

This argument suggests that there must be an infallible entity to determine what Scriptures are. But the problem with this is that a person must first determine which is the infallible entity, how will he do that? The believers of God identify what is Scripture because they have a relationship with God. Having this relationship, they know the actions of God like a boyfriend knowing the actions of his girlfriend as gained from their bonding times. John 10:4-5 says:

When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."

By the way, will a person go to hell for not knowing that Matthew wrote Matthew?

(d) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). The Council of Jerusalem didn’t appeal to Scripture in any way akin to how Sola Scriptura operates. There was a major doctrinal controversy, but rather than turn to Scripture, the Apostles made an authoritative ruling. The only quote from Scripture the Council turned to was a generalized Old Testament prophecy that didn’t touch directly upon the issue of circumcision. The Church acted infallibly when it issued the decree “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (15:28), and made these teachings binding on all(16:4), which rules out Sola Scriptura by definition.

This is a lie, in Acts 15:15 to 18, James was quoting Amos 9:11-12 in support of his declaration. So who says they didn’t appeal to Scripture? Furthermore, since the Holy Spirit was revealing this to them, it is a period of ensrcripturation.

(c) The Word of God. While many mistakenly think the phrase “word of God” refers to the Bible, the fact is the phrase “word of God,” as used in Scripture, most often refers to the oral teachings of the Apostles, especially in reference to the Gospel. Texts such as 1 Thessalonians 2:13 say this “word of God” is explicitly the oral teaching of the Apostles. For Sola Scriptura to work, it would have to be shown that this oral teaching was eventually (sufficiently) written down, but the Bible never says this.

(e) 2 Thessalonians 2:15. This texts tells us to hold onto the traditions the Apostles passed on whether they came in oral or written format. This indicates the presence of oral as well as written teaching from the Apostles, explicitly refuting Sola Scriptura. The context of this verse is very much is that of a “rule of faith” scenario, explaining this all pertains to the Gospel and salvation.

The two are related. This is what I require since my opening statement. You do not know how every Roman Catholic misunderstood 2^nd Thessalonians 2:15. The verse does not say hold on to oral and written traditions. It says hold on to traditions that was delivered orally and in writing. The manner of transmitting tradition was done through oral and written means. The verse does not suggest that there are oral traditions which cannot be found in written traditions. It only distinguishes the manner of delivery.

Lastly,

(f) Jude 1:14-15. In St Jude’s Epistle, he quotes a prophecy of the Old Testament Patriarch Enoch. While some would say Jude was quoting an apocryphal source, this doesn’t do justice to the fact this is an inspired prophecy kept for centuries. What is more accurate is that this was a truly inspired prophecy uttered by Enoch, but it was never written down and was rather passed on orally. The same thing can be said in regards to Jude 1:9 and St Michael the Archangel. This obviously disproves the notion of Sola Scriptura.

And up to now, Vatican has not determined if the source of Jude’s quotation is useful for the church. To say that this comes from oral tradition or some assumed source simply because it cannot be found in the Old Testament is arguing from ignorance. How about the possibility of being directed by the Holy Spirit? It’s a big leap for Nick and not to mention wishful thinking.

Overall, Nick is repeating the same banana that the likes of Patrick Madrid, Gerry Matatics, and even Stephen Ray have been banging. These arguments have long been refuted yet it is often repeated stubbornly.

Like I said, in order for Nick to defeat Sola Scriptura he must show me another rule of faith. He must prove that Scripture alone is not alone.