Justification by Faith Alone Debate - Opening Essay by Nick

Does the Bible teach Justification by Faith Alone?

Opening Essay

by Nick

I would like to begin by thanking Jeff for engaging in this debate with me; he will be affirming the resolution, I will be denying it.

1) The doctrine of Sola Fide is built from the premise that, starting with Adam, God had established a way for man to get to heaven, and this condition was perfect obedience to God’s law (which, conversely, demanded punishments for violating it). This is popularly termed in Protestant theology the “Covenant of Works” (cf London Baptist Confession 19.1-2), and is to be thought of as akin to scoring a 100% on a test to be worthy of an “A” in class. Adam failed this obligation, bringing corruption and sin upon the whole world. With fallen man not only failing to perfectly keep God’s law (and thus not worthy to enter Heaven), he also deserves punishment for breaking it. But what man could not do for himself, God graciously did for him, in Christ: Who through the Incarnation both took the punishment man deserved (aka “passive obedience”) and kept God’s law perfectly in man's place (aka “active obedience”) - and graciously “credited” this (dual) obedience to the account of those sinners who receive this (so called) “righteousness of Christ” by faith. This is popularly termed the “Covenant of Grace”. The moment the sinner receives “Christ’s Righteousness” by faith, they are said to be “Justified” - which is a once and for all time legal declaration by God acting as Judge declaring that this individual not only has been cleared of any wrongdoing (i.e. punishments are satisfied) but that this individual is also “righteous” (which is a legal status bestowed upon those who perfectly keep God’s laws) legally entitling them to enter Heaven (cf LBC 11.1).

2) For Jeff to win this debate, he must demonstrate the above concepts are clearly supported by Scripture.

3) While there is some truth to the Protestant understanding of justification, there are significant unbiblical concepts which Sola Fide rests upon. These erroneous concepts will now be addressed.

(3a) “Covenant of Works”. Many of the details behind this doctrine are presupposed and not derived from Scripture. Most significant to this debate is that the “law,” “covenant,” and “works of the Law” Paul was preaching against - in contradistinction to “faith” - was none other than the (works of the) Mosaic Law, not some eternal law of God given to Adam. The Mosaic Law never promised eternal life, even if kept perfectly (e.g. Galatians 2:21; 3:15-18; 4:21-31), and was inferior to the (new and perfect) “Law of Christ” (e.g. Mk 10:2-12). Clearly, the main problem Paul was dealing with was not Pelagianism, but rather a Racial and Covenental problem (i.e. Jews 'versus' Gentiles): Acts 13:39; 15:1,5; Rom 3:29; Gal 6:12-13; Phil 3:2-6. This is why Paul focused his attention in Romans and Galatians on identifying the proper relationship to Abraham (e.g. Rom 4:11-12; Gal 3:29), while exposing the improper relationship (Rom 2:28-29; 9:6-7; cf. Matt 3:7-9; John 8:39, etc).

(3b) Christ’s “active obedience”. The Bible nowhere teaches this concept. This is not to say Christ sinned, He did not - it is only to say this was not done as a specific component for our justification but rather as a condition in order to make Him a worthy sacrifice.

The chief proof-text is Romans 5:19. The Protestant reasoning here is that Adam’s disobedience is contrasted to Christ’s obedience, and thus it must be saying Christ kept the law in our place. But this is simply begging the question, since Christ's “passive obedience” certainly fits here, with no reason to assume more than that. In fact, the only other time “obedience” is said in reference to Christ is in Philippians 2:8 and Hebrews 5:8, which are both explicitly speaking of passive obedience only.

When the lack of any reasonable Biblical evidence for “active obedience” is compared to the abundant references to “passive obedience,” as the saying goes, “the silence is deafening”: in virtually every verse where Christ’s work is mentioned, the only component ever mentioned is Christ’s Suffering/Death (and Resurrection), never his “active obedience”. Consider: Rom 3:21-26; 4:23-25; 5:6-11; 6:1-11; 8:3, 31-34; 10:6-10; 1 Cor 1:22-23; 2:2; 5:7; 15:3-4; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 2:19-21; 3:13-14; 6:14; Eph 2:13-16; 5:2, 25; Phil 2:5-11; 3:8-11; Col 1:19-23; 2:11-15; 3:1-3; 1 Thes 4:13-14; 5:9-10; 1 Tim 2:5-6; Titus 2:13-14; Heb 1:3, 2:9-10, 14-17; 5:1, 7-9; 6:4-6, 7:20-27; 9:11-28; 10:8-22; 12:1-2, 24; 13:12, 20-21; 1 Peter 1:17-19; 2:18-25; 3:18-22; 1 Jn 2:1-2; 3:16; 4:10; etc.

It cannot be an accident that there are repeated reference to Christ’s Death (and Resurrection), without a single mention of “active obedience.”

Lastly, the concept of Christ's “active obedience” contradicts the plain Scriptural teaching that God grants a believer “eternal life” not when they first believe, but at the judgment at end of their life (Lk 18:18-30; Rom 2:6-8, 6:22, Gal 6:7-9, etc) - and deems them worthy (or not) on the basis of the Christian's own good works, not on the basis of Christ's good works done in their place (e.g Mat 25:31-46; 2 Cor 5:10). The doctrine of Sola Fide has (mistakenly) conflated conversion with final salvation (e.g. Mat 24:12-13; Rom 8:24; 10:9-10; 13:11b; 1 Cor 10:1-6; 15:2; 1 Tim 2:15; 2 Tim 4:7-8). (NB: the Final Judgment texts, with God acting as Judge, are the only passages in which salvation is stated in a principally forensic framework.)

(3c) Christ’s “passive obedience”. While numerous passages speak of Christ suffering and dying for our sins, the Protestant understanding of passive obedience is an unbiblical concoction called “Penal Substitution” - teaching that Christ received the very punishment the sinner deserved, which is nothing short of suffering the Father’s full Wrath (which the damned in hell must end up suffering for themself). John Calvin (as do most other Protestant theologians) taught that:

"Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. ... Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God." (Institutes 3:16:10)

Needless to say, the Bible never teaches Jesus endured anything more than a physical death, a murder in fact, and certainly not the Father's Wrath. Further, the OT never teaches Penal Substitution, thus it's incongruent that it would foreshadow such for Christ. The use of the Old Testament term “atonement” (Strong's #H3722) never involves transferring punishment but rather turning away wrath by doing good deeds (e.g. Gen 32:20; Ex 30:16; Ex32:30//Psalm106:19-23//Deut 9:13-29; Num 16:46-48; Num 25:1-13//Pslam106:30-31; Num 31:50; Prov 16:6, 14). And the Levitical Sacrifices didn't operate in terms of Penal Substitution either. For example: (i) the Sin Offering was only for minor/unintentional sins, never for grave sin (Num 35:30-33), and could be made without killing (Lev 5:11-13); (ii) the Peace Offering was not about atoning for sin, but involved virtually the same instructions of laying on hands on the animal's head and killing it (e.g. Lev 3:1-2).

Lastly, Penal Substitution entails that all of the believers sins he has committed and will ever commit are forgiven at once, which is not only never taught in Scripture, it is contradicted by the fact Scripture only speaks of past sins forgiven (e.g. 2 Pt 1:9; 1 Jn 1:9) and the regular need for repentance (e.g. Mat 6:12), else the believer will lose his salvation and even be damned (e.g. Mk 9:43-47; Mat 18:23-35). David is a prime example of this, as Lutherans (rightly) teach in the Book of Concord (Smalcald Articles 3:3:43), quoting Martin Luther: “when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them.” In other words, David lost his salvation (justification) and had to repent to recover it, as Romans 4 describes his repentance in Psalm 32.

(3d) “Christ’s Righteousness”. Despite the fact the two components which 'comprise' Christ’s Righteousness (i.e. His passive and active obedience) are not actually biblical, since there is frequent mention of “Christ’s Righteousness” (also called the “righteousness of Christ”) by Protestant sources, some points are in order: 

• Nowhere does the term “Christ’s Righteousness” nor any equivalent concept appear in Scripture.

• Luther originally got the idea by mistakenly thinking it was the “Righteousness of God,” but Paul is speaking of the Righteousness of God the Father, not Jesus particularly. (The Father never had to earn this righteousness by perfect law keeping; it’s a quality of God’s Nature, not a legal status.)

• When the Bible speaks of righteousness in reference to Christ or the “Righteousness of God,” it is speaking primarily of God’s faithfulness to fulfilling His Promises, despite the fact sinners seem to have foiled His Plans (Jeremiah 33:14-18; Rom 3:3-5).

(3e) Imputation. The Greek term for “impute” (also translated into English as “credited,” “reckoned,” “counted,” etc, all with the same general meaning) is logizomai (Strong’s #G3049), and most Bible dictionaries readily admit the primary meaning is to take a literal account of something. Though the term is used about 40 times in the New Testament, it's never used in the sense Protestants suggest. The sense in which the Protestant is using logizomai is along the lines of “transfer,” such that the phrase “faith is credited [logizomai] as righteousness” (Romans 4:3) is taken to mean “faith transfers [Christ's] Righteousness to the believer's account.” But again, the Bible never uses logizomai in this manner.

Consider how the New Testament itself points away from the Protestant definition of the term. Here are some examples: 

• Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude [logizomai] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 

• Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted [logizomai] as a gift but as his due.

• Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

• Rom 8:18 For I reckon [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

In each of the above situations, the term logizomai is being used to reckon what is actually true about the object itself. In other words, in these examples Paul reckons that:

(i) a man is saved by faith not by works of the law, which is a fact about the nature of works of the law, since they don’t save.

(ii) a working man’s wages are reckoned not as a gift but rather (reckoned) as debt, which is likewise a fact about the nature of paid-wages. (This context is where “reckoned” [logizomai] also occurs in Rom 4:3,5!)

(iii) the Christian is to be reckoned as dead to sin since they’ve died in a very real way to sin (as Romans 6 as a whole teaches), which again is a fact about the nature of a saved person.

(iv) the present sufferings are not comparable to Heavenly glory, which goes without saying, a fact about the nature of the current situation.

Further, there are clear examples of logizomai where someone reckons incorrectly and is thus sinning or in error since they failed to reckon something as it truly was. Consider: 

• Mark 15:28 - Christ was (falsely) reckoned as a criminal by the Jews

• Romans 2:3 - the hypocrite (falsely) reckons he will not be judged for committing the same sins he judges others for committing   

• Romans 8:36 - persecutors (falsely) reckoning Christians as “sheep for the slaughter”

• Romans 14:14 - a spiritually weak Christian (wrongly) reckons certain food to be “unclean”    

• 2 Corinthians 10:2 - troublemakers (falsely) reckoning Paul as an unbeliever

Thus, to reckon something other than what it really is (except by similitude), especially opposite of what it is, ranges from a mistake to a grave sin - something which God could never do.

(3f) Justification. Protestants insist the Greek word for “justify” (dikaioo) means to legally “declare righteous” (based strictly on Christ's Imputed Righteousness), while Catholics hold the term can be used a variety of ways, including “to make righteous”. Catholics contend the argument doesn’t hang on this distinction as must as Protestants have (historically) claimed, since “declare righteous” can be a sort of ‘capstone’ to a transformation that just took place within the believer. Indeed, the Council of Trent dogmatically defined Justification as an umbrella term carrying under it: forgiveness of sins (Rom 4:6; Acts 13:38f), sanctification (1 Cor 6:11), spiritual renewal (Titus 3:4-7), and adoption (Gal 3:2,7,14; 4:5; Rom 4:11-13). These components are so closely related that one cannot happen without the rest. And dikaioo is clearly expressing more than simply “declare righteous” in other texts as well, such as: (i) Luke 18:13-14 “he who humbles himself will be exalted,” which is a combination of forgiveness and inner renewal; (ii) Romans 5:9 parallels “justified by his blood” to “reconciled by his death”; (iii) Romans 6:7 defines “justify” as “freed from sin”; (iv) Romans 8:29-30 explains “called, justified, glorified” as “conformed to the image of Christ”; (v) 1 Timothy 3:16 says Jesus was “justified by the Spirit,” speaking of His Resurrection (cf Rom 1:4).

And the term dikaioo need not appear when equivalent terms such as “saved” are used. For example: (i) Acts 15:9,11 parallels “cleansed their heart by faith” to “saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.” (ii) Ephesians 2:5,8 says “when we were dead in our trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ” and defines this as “by grace you have been saved” (iii) Philippians 3:3, 9-11 says the “the righteousness from God that depends on faith” is to be understood as “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” These passages frame “saved” (i.e. “justified”) in terms of an inner transformation of the soul – yet this not what Sola Fide teaches.

(3g) Faith. Sola Fide teaches that faith is a passive element in justification, acting as an “empty hand,” receiving Christ’s Righteousness. Protestants claim that for faith to have any inherent value would contradict Romans 4:4-5, reasoning that faith as an act pleasing to God would be equivalent to doing any work and getting paid for it. But this is simply misguided and not how Scripture defines faith. When it comes to the Bible defining faith Hebrews 11:1,2 & 6 says this: “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. ... And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” And to buttress this point, “faith” means “faithful obedience” in virtually every Old Testament saint referenced in Hebrews 11. Clearly, faith is an act of man (given as a gift by God), in which man is able to render belief and obedience unto God, and that faith does “please God” and receives God's commendation. This also fits the Biblical notion that faith can grow, which makes no sense if faith is a passive ‘instrument’ (since it would have to be uniform for everyone). Further, there are references Christians being of “little faith,” requests to “increase our faith,” and holy men being of “great faith” (e.g. Mt 8:10). This can only mean faith itself is a good thing, and the more you have of it, the more pleasing to God you are.

Abraham is Paul's star witness to his thesis “the righteous will live by faith[fulness]” (Rom 1:18, quoting Habakuk 2:4; also quoted and explained in detail in Hebrews 10:36ff). In Romans 4, Paul says Abraham was justified in Genesis 15, and describes his impressive act of faith as follows: “In hope he believed against hope... He did not weaken in faith... No distrust made him waver... but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was "counted to him as righteousness." ” (4:18-22). So, contrary to Sola Fide, faith itself was credited as a righteous act - just as Phinehas' good work was credited as a righteous act (as recorded in Psalm 106:30-31, using the same Hebrew/Greek phrase “credited as righteousness” as Genesis 15:6). And this was not the first time Abraham was justified, since he faithfully followed God years before this Genesis 15 event, as Hebrews 11:8 and Galatians 3:8 show when hearkening back to Genesis 12:1-4. (Nor was Genesis 15 the last time he was justified, as James 2:14,21-24 and Genesis 22:1,9-12 teach, when God tested Abraham and Blessed his faithfulness.) And this fits other similar examples, such as when by faithful obedience Abel was “commended as righteous” (Heb 11:4) and Noah's faithfulness made him “an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith” (Heb 11:4; as with Abraham, Romans 4:13).

4) Having refuted, from Scripture, the tenets holding up the doctrine of Sola Fide, we would not expect any Scriptural references to “salvation by faith” to be teaching the specific doctrine of Sola Fide as the Reformers understood it.

Justification by Faith Alone Debate Annoucement

Justification by Faith Alone Debate Annoucement

 I am pleased to announce that a Calvinist named Jeff has agreed to a debate on Sola Fide with me. Here are the general conditions of the debate:

Resolution: Does the Bible teach Justification by Faith Alone?

Affirmed: Jeff

Denied: Nick

Essays are 3,000 words, posted publicly on our blogs by the END of the week (by midnight on Saturday). A 1 week grace period is given to each debater in the event their personal life wont let them get around to posting. Comment boxes are closed, except for the Concluding Essay.

Format:
Week1: Both sides present an Opening Essay.
Week2*: Both sides present a Rebuttal Essay.
Week2*: Both sides submit 5 Questions to the other person.
Week3: Both sides submit Answers to the questions.
Week4: Both sides submit a Concluding Essay.
 

Debate Starts: Sunday, September 26, 2010

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!