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.

Because of the hope of Israel, I am bound with this chain.

UPDATED: 5-6-12, see end of article.

I was re-reading the Acts of the Apostles recently, and something very profound stood out to me that didn't 'hit me' as it should have in the past: the Apostle Paul loved his Jewish brothers dearly! Not being a Jew myself, and thus not having lived the Jewish lifestyle, I can only get a glimpse of what it was like for St Paul when he stood among his brethren to share the Gospel with them.

While today it is a very unpopular thing to do - even politically incorrect, if not "anti-Semitic" by some (false) reckoning - sharing the Gospel with the Jews is no less important than it was at the time of the Apostles. And traditionally, the Catholic Church has always made it clear that all men need salvation, including Jews, and that salvation comes only through the Lord Jesus Christ. Given this, it is sad that there had been such a de-emphasis on sharing the Gospel with all mankind, as if some don't need to know about Jesus, or worse yet, some don't need Jesus at all! And when one reads the New Testament writings, especially Acts, they see how important and dear it was to share the Gospel with the Jews first and foremost.

In the epilogue of Acts (written by St Luke, Paul's companion), one of the last things Paul says to the Jews is: "Because of the hope of Israel, I am bound with this chain." (28:20) Taken in isolation, this verse doesn't mean much; but taken in context, this means the world to Paul. After his miraculous conversion, Paul sees new meaning in his life as a Jewish-Christian, and a new calling by God to be a major spokesman for the Good News of Jesus. But this would come at a price. From the day of his conversion, his life would be a roller coaster of suffering and persecution, as he briefly explains: "Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches." (2 Corinthians 11:24ff)

The first thing Paul did upon his Baptism was to go to the local synagogues - where the Jews prayed - to share the Good News he was blessed to receive himself. But often times the Jews would not have this, and whenever Paul began making converts, other (jealous) Jews would stir up riots and threaten his life. But in spite of all this, God, in His Providence, preserved Paul's life so that His chosen vessel could carry the Gospel to the ends of the (colonized) earth. When Paul said, "Because of the hope of Israel, I am bound with this chain," this was after he had been forcibly taken from Jerusalem to Rome - so after his final pleading with the Jews of the Jewish capital, he could make a few bold appeals to the Jews in the world's capital. From this point on, he remained semi-imprisoned (under house arrest) in Rome, writing many of his Epistles, until his martyrdom.

This line was so profound to me because it always seemed as if the focus on sharing the Gospel was the Gentiles, especially for Paul. But the fact is, all throughout Acts, even to the very last chapter, the Jews are given a very special and primary emphasis when it came to evangelization. Since the Jews were originally chosen by God, based on a promise He made to Abraham, to be entrusted with sharing His Law and eventually His Son to the world, it was only fitting that the Jews should be the first to hear and accept the Gospel. For people today to say the Jews don't need to hear the Gospel so that they might know their Messiah and be eternally saved is not only a slap in the face to Paul and the efforts of the other Apostles, it's a monstrous injustice. The Catholic Church has always maintained that not sharing the gospel with unbelievers (of any background) is akin to not sharing food with a starving person. In the case of the Jews, the (spiritually) starving people were Paul's own brethren.

So what does this mean for us today? And how are we to share the Gospel with the Jews when Saint Paul himself had such a difficult time doing so? Certainly, most of us cannot match the abilities of Paul, nor are we endowed with the same level of the outpouring of gifts of the Spirit as he was. But Providence teaches us that God always provides a way, and uses various means to accomplish His Plans.

I believe one of the strongest apologetics and evangelization arguments that can be made to Jews is to get them to realize that the Judaism they practice today is not the Judaism to which Saint Paul, nor Jesus, nor even Moses believed in and practiced. Why is this so? The fullest expression of worshiping God for the Jewish mind is that of Temple worship and sacrifice, which is also a central aspect of the Mosaic Law. But since 70 A.D., this ideal form of worship has been an impossibility, since the center of Jewish worship, the Temple, was utterly destroyed by the Roman Empire armies. But that's not all, around that time Jews began losing their identity through other difficulties and persecutions, quickly leading to the loss of the Levitical priesthood (and the loss of the other Tribal lineages as well). Just as without the Temple, the center of worship has been lost, so with the loss of the Levitical priesthood there can be no sacrifices according to the Torah for everyday Jewish life and living. And with these forever lost for about 2,000 years, this means that the "Judaism" of today is in its essence, not true Judaism and certainly not that of the Apostolic times. This is only further compounded by the fact there has been no new Divine Revelation or Prophets for the Jews for at least that long.

To put this problem in terms of Catholicism: it would be as if the Papacy and Apostolic Succession had been lost for 2,000 years, and no new Apostles for at least that long. Practicing Catholicism would be (functionally) impossible, since there would be no priesthood, no Sacraments, and no Church Authority. This "Catholicism" would not be the Catholicism of the Apostles.

Given this, today's Jews are faced with a very big question:  

Is God trying to tell us something in that we've not been able to worship Him as his Law demands for almost 2,000 years? 

(Not being able to worship God according to the Torah is no joke for the Jewish mind.)
I believe the answer is, "Yes!" The only alternative - which all would agree is unacceptable - is that the God of Israel was a false god all along, since that's the only thing that can explain this 2,000 year abandonment.

Since the God of Israel is the One True God, then there must be an explanation, and the only reasonable explanation is Christianity (which arose right within the time frame when the Temple was destroyed). Christianity is the only group that can honestly claim to uphold the Torah and Prophets - and this by pointing out that they are fulfilled in Jesus, the Hope of Israel.

How can a Jew today "object" to this reasoning? I don't see how they can. And this is not Christians acting mean in any way, but rather this is sharing the Truth in Love.

UPDATE 5-6-12. 

In my recent study for my 70AD post, I came across various quotes from Early Church Fathers who had made similar arguments as far back as Origen (185AD). Here is what they said:

• Origen, The Principles 4:3, says: But if the prophet's words be true, when he says, The children of Israel shall abide many days without king, without prince; and there shall be no victim, nor altar, nor priesthood; [Hosea 3:4] and if, certainly, since the overthrow of the temple, victims are neither offered, nor any altar found, nor any priesthood exists, it is most certain that, as it is written, princes have departed from Judah, and a leader from between his thighs, until the coming of Him for whom it has been reserved. It is established, then, that He has come for whom it has been reserved, and in whom is the expectation of the Gentiles. And this manifestly seems to be fulfilled in the multitude of those who have believed on God through Christ out of the different nations.

• Origen, Against Celsus 4:22, says: But, according to Celsus, the Christians, making certain additional statements to those of the Jews, assert that the Son of God has been already sent on account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews having chastised Jesus, and given him gall to drink, have brought upon themselves the divine wrath. And any one who likes may convict this statement of falsehood, if it be not the case that the whole Jewish nation was overthrown within one single generation after Jesus had undergone these sufferings at their hands. For forty and two years, I think, after the date of the crucifixion of Jesus, did the destruction of Jerusalem take place. Now it has never been recorded, since the Jewish nation began to exist, that they have been expelled for so long a period from their venerable temple-worship and service, and enslaved by more powerful nations; for if at any time they appeared to be abandoned because of their sins, they were notwithstanding visited (by God), and returned to their own country, and recovered their possessions, and performed unhindered the observances of their law.

•  Athanasius, On the Incarnation 40, says: For if, I say—which is just what we actually see—there is no longer king nor prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them, but even the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and Gentiles, leaving their godlessness, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham, through the Word, even our Lord Jesus Christ, then it must be plain, even to those who are exceedingly obstinate, that the Christ has come, and that He has illumined absolutely all with His light, and given them the true and divine teaching concerning His Father. So one can fairly refute the Jews by these and by other arguments from the Divine Scriptures.

•  Tertullian, Against Marcion 3:23, says: Therefore these things either did not happen to the Jews on His account, in which case you will be refuted by the sense of the Scriptures tallying with the issue of the facts and the order of the times, or else they did happen on His account, and then the Creator could not have inflicted the vengeance except for His own Christ; nay, He must have rather had a reward for Judas, if it had been his master's enemy whom they put to death. At all events, if the Creator's Christ has not come yet, on whose account the prophecy dooms them to such sufferings, they will have to endure the sufferings when He shall have come. Then where will there be a daughter of Sion to be reduced to desolation, for there is none now to be found? Where will there be cities to be burnt with fire, for they are now in heaps? Where a nation to be dispersed, which is already in banishment?

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.

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.