"SOLA
SCRIPTURA: A BIBLICAL REEXAMINATION"
by
Daniel
Mann
Arguably, the most significant
rediscovery of Protestant Christianity has been the doctrine of “justification
by grace through faith alone”. However, often overlooked, the doctrine of “Sola
Scriptura” (“Scripture alone”) serves to
safeguard the former doctrine along with all of the other Protestant
distinctives, serving as their “sine qua none”.
Without “sola scriptura” guarding
our thought, our doctrine lies defenseless against an assortment of additions all claiming to be
the Word of God.
An addition need not be found within
the binding of the Holy Bible to be an addition. Any church which places a tradition or
proclamation on equal footing with the Bible violates “Sola Scriptura”. Such an
addition then serves as an equal authority to the Bible and therefore can’t be
critiqued by the Bible. “Sola Scriptura” asserts that everything and everyone
to which the Bible speaks must be subordinate to the Bible’s Word.
If the Bible must share the stage
with equal authorities, these new authorities will inevitably dictate a new set
of doctrines and distort or supplant the old.
I am writing this “Biblical Reexamination” because of this concern. In
the last few years, numerous books have been published with the sole intention
of attacking “Sola Scriptura” as unbiblical. I hope to demonstrate that this
doctrine is the teaching of both Old and New Testaments.
OLD TESTAMENT
TESTIMONY TO THE SUPREMACY OF THE WORD
The Bible's own testimony is replete
with assertions that God's Word towers over every other communication.
The law
of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple; The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the
heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of
the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous
altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, Yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is
warned, And in keeping them there is great reward (Psalm 19:7-11).
Scripture alone is spoken of as
"wise", "sure", "clean", "true", and
"righteous". Nowhere in Scripture do we encounter anything at all
similar describing the words that originate with mankind. Instead, a person is
regarded as wise only insofar as he conforms with God's Word.
PREEMINENCE OF THE
WORD OF GOD
The Word of God, whether oral or
written, held a preeminent place in the life of
"Therefore
you shall keep every commandment which I command you today, that you may be
strong, and go in and possess the land which you cross over to possess, and
that you may prolong your days in the land..." (Deut. 11:8-9).
It was always a matter of following
God's commands rather than
"And
you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years
in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart,
whether you would keep His commandments or not. So He humbled you, allowed you
to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers
know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but
man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD" (Deut.
8:2-3).
The instructions for collecting the
manna were quite detailed and had to be followed exactly even though
God taught them as He would little
children to demonstrate that any failure to follow His Word exactly as He gave
it to them would prove costly. Such
obedience would take priority over everything. When tempted by the Devil, Jesus
too resorted to the Word of God, standing on the principle of obedience to
God's Word above all else (Mat 4:4-10; Deut. 8:3).
Loving God likewise entailed the
keeping of His Word. "And it shall be that if you earnestly obey My
commandments which I command you today, to love the LORD your God and serve Him
with all your heart and with all your soul, then I will send rain..."
(Deut. 11:13-14; cp. Deut. 19:9; John 14:21-24).
Bible-centered Christianity is often
derisively called "bibliolatry", the worship of the Bible as opposed
to the worship of God. But it is God Himself who ordains that He be worshipped
through the truth of His Word. It was the Word that prescribed acceptable
worship; it was the Word that brought salvation ("This is my comfort in my
affliction, For Your Word has given me life" (Psalm 119:50, 81)); Israel
placed their hope in God through His Word ("I wait for the Lord, my soul doth wait,
and in His Word do I hope" (Psalm 130:5; cp. 119:42-43; 74, 81, 114)).
All of the above serves to
demonstrate that
"And
these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach
them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your
house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up"
(Deut. 6:6-7; cp. Josh 1:8; Psalm 1).
The
Word was to be their continuous occupation. So as not to forget it, they were
commanded to bind it to their houses and even to their own bodies (Deut. 6:8).
Departing from the Word was tantamount to adultery and disrupted of
EXCLUSIVITY OF THE
WORD
It was not enough that the Word was
"true", "righteous", etc. and even the center of Israelite
life and worship if it failed to distinguish Itself from all rivals. If other
revelations were to be allowed equal footing with the Word, the Word would
eventually become watered down and then discarded. Indeed, we find that Mosaic
revelation is filled with warnings against foreign worship and revelation,
warnings which are backed up by the severest penalties.
"You
shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may
keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2;
It is a mistake to assume that
"add to the word" is simply a matter of adding something to or within
the pages of a particular volume or book. "Adding" within the
biblical framework pertained also to claiming that something was the Word of
God, albeit unwritten, when it actually wasn't. It also pertained to elevating
in any way the word of mankind to the stature of the Word of God (Jer.
"When
you come into the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn
to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you
anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who
practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a
sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who
calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD,
and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before
you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. For these nations which
you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the
LORD your God has not appointed such for you" (Deut. 18:9-14).
Of course, this didn't prohibit
learning from man's wisdom any more than it would prohibit us from learning a
recipe from cookbook or from taking a course in mathematics. Instead, the Bible
affirms that where God speaks, His Word stands far above everything else and
must serve to critique any human wisdom. In the areas where God spoke,
faithfulness was measured by whether or not
To the
law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is
because there is no light in them (Isaiah
Isaiah explained that going to the
wizards or even to the dead wouldn't provide the light that
PROVISIONS FOR
PROTECTING THE WORD FROM ADDITIONS
God's Word was to be so central to
"If
there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a
sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke
to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods'‑‑which you have not
known, and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that
prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know
whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments
and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. But that prophet
or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order
to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of
Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in
which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil
from your midst" (Deut. 13.1-5).
Even if the prophecy was to be
accompanied by miraculous visitations, it was to be rejected and the messenger
killed if he was to prophesy contrary to the Word. Strangely, it is God Himself
who allows these trials to enter into the midst of His people to establish
which would have priority among them: the Word or a seductive prophecy. It
should serve as a reminder that faithfulness to God requires contending for His
truth not just passively by simply not promoting a falsehood, but also actively
by preventing the acceptance of false "words". Preserving the Word
was so critical that all
Even if an alleged prophecy didn't
violate the Word of God, it didn't automatically win acceptance. There was a
further criterion. The prophet was required to have miraculous attestation to
authenticate his words.
"'But
the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded
him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.'
And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has
not spoken?' when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does
not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken;
the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him"
(Deut. 18:20-22).
Speaking correctly isn't enough if
one is claiming to speak a Word coming from God. The prophet must prove that he
has been divinely appointed. Speaking in God's name when God hasn't spoken was
very serious business. It is serious enough to speak for another without
authorization even if the message is benign; how much more so when someone
claims to speak what God never directed him to speak (Jer. 23:25-40)!
This was such a serious matter that
it wasn't simply a question of confirming the message by two or three witnesses
as a matter was usually established (Num. 35.30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15). A far more
stringent standard must be met. The one who spoke prophecy had to be inerrantly
correct about future events. Preserving the Word of God from intrusions was so
critical that if the prophet missed on just one occasion, "that prophet
shall die" (Deut.
It is also understandable that the
greater the revelation, the greater the required divine attestation.
The giving of the New Covenant was
also miraculously attested to by Jesus' many miracles, the crucifixion, and by
the resurrection. The miracles were performed before great crowds. There was
never a thought that the "healings" might just have been cleverly
staged events or were a product of psychological manipulations.
The crucifixion was also attended by
great miracles such that even the unbelieving centurion proclaimed,
"Surely, he was the Son of God" (Mat. 27:54). Even "the tombs
broke open, and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to
life...they went into the holy city and appeared to many people" (Mat.
27:52-53). It had to be clear that this new revelation was God's revelation.
While the Prophets (see Deut. 32
where Mosaic prophecy serves as a basis for the rest of Old Testament prophecy)
and the various Old Testament writings were merely an outworking and
elaboration of Mosaic revelation, the revelation of Jesus represented a quantum
leap (although this too was anticipated by the OT) and required a quantum leap
of divine attestation. Appreciating this and the requirement of divine
attestation in general, remarkable is the number of “divine revelations” that
have gained currency.
Jesus didn't expect credulity. He
didn't demand that people believe Him simply because He claimed to be speaking
the Words of God. Instead, He told them not to believe Him without
divine attestation.
"If
I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears
witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is
true" (John
Jesus then admonished the people to
believe Him because He does have attestation: that of John the Baptist, the
Father, the Word, and the miracles. What a contrast to the various cult leaders
who claim that they are speaking for God and command a following by virtue of
their own assertions. We are not supposed to be casual about the Word of God
but very critical (Acts
NEW TESTAMENT ATTESTATION TO "SOLA
SCRIPTURA"
We find replicated in the New
Testament the same message of "Scripture alone preeminent". Jesus'
own testimony to the exalted nature of the Word of God was unequivocal.
"Do
not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to
destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass
away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is
fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and
teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever
does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven"
(Mat. 5:17-19).
According to Jesus, the Word was
inviolable and could not be altered in contrast to any of the words of man.
While living and teaching in accordance with this truth brought great blessing,
teaching otherwise would be at a great cost. As God, whatever He spoke was the
Word of God yet He submitted His entire life under the authority Word (Mat.
4:4-10; Luke 24:27; John
Jesus clearly taught that Scripture
was from God and was therefore without error. It followed from this that no
commandments could arbitrarily be set aside nor any teachings ignored or
watered down. The problem of adding to Scripture, even where the new material
presents no contradiction, demands that Scripture must at least accommodate
itself to the new material and thereby suffer some watering down.
For instance, it can perhaps be
argued, however unconvincingly, that the doctrine of "purgatory"
doesn't actually contradict Scripture. However, even if this is the case, by
incorporating "purgatory", our other doctrines must consequently
accommodate themselves to the "new kid on the block". Our
understanding of "atonement" must undergo some accommodation. The
"Cross" is no longer entirely sufficient. The suffering of the
near-do-wells in purgatory is now also necessary for atonement. Correspondingly,
our love of God must be scaled down because we had before exclusively credited
Him for the atonement but now recognize through "purgatory" that we
too play a role. Our understanding of "judgement" must necessarily
change and accommodate itself now to an abbreviated understanding of judgement.
Likewise, our understanding of "justice", "evangelism", and
the "church" must also undergo some "refinement".
Jesus wasn't indifferent toward the
additions even when they came in the honored form of the "tradition of the
Elders".
He
answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of
God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father
and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to
death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever
profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"‑‑
'then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the
commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah
prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And
honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me" (Mat. 15.3-8).
These Pharisaic additions were quite
godly in appearance. The washing of hands certainly had the appearance of
godliness. Many would affirm that "cleanliness is next to godliness".
In Matthew 15, Jesus criticized them for committing their financial resources
to God rather than to their parents. But what could be the matter with such a
tradition? Doesn't giving to God take precedence over giving to one's parents?
However, Jesus castigated them for elevating a tradition of man to the level of
the Word of God, thereby undermining the Word.
Of course, the Roman Church responds
that their own traditions are the Word of God, which had before been the oral
tradition committed to the Apostles, and not the word of man. In response, it
is appropriate to note that the Jews also believed that their traditions were
the Word of God given orally to Moses and passed on faithfully through their
generations. However, such a claim should have shouldered the burden of proof.
THE SUFFICIENCY OF
SCRIPTURE
While the Old Testament doesn’t
claim that it is sufficient, the New testament does so.
...Scriptures
which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus
(the Gospel). All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work
(2Tim. 3:16-17; cp. Rom 15:4).
This places a double burden of proof
upon later additions and an open canon. If Scripture does equip us "for every
good work", what is the necessity for further revelation?
In many ways, the New Testament
follows upon the heels of the Old affirming the centrality and exclusivity of
the Word. John applies the same Old Testament warning to his own Revelations.
REV
22:18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this
book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are
written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the
holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Rev 22:18-19).
John clearly knew he was writing
Scripture (Rev. 1:1-3) and therefore didn't hesitate to apply to his own Book
the same Old Testament injunction against adding to the Word. So important was
the defense of the integrity and the boundaries of the Word, that the
consequence for the tampering of this Word couldn't be greater: removal from
the "Book of Life". This seems to have been the New Testament's
answer to the Old Testament's death penalty (Gal. 1:9).
Peter affirms that if we want to glorify God, we need to
stick to His Word. "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.
If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that
in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the
glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen" (1 Pet.
Paul is even more explicit. When we
go beyond the confines of Scripture, even in our thinking, we fall into error
and may have to suffer consequences.
Now
these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos
for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written,
that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. For who
makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive?
Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received
it (1 Cor 4:6-7)?
The Corinthians had broken up into
warring factions, each believing its own group superior to others. They failed
to see that any blessing that they might have was purely a gift from God and
instead, they took credit for these blessings. They fell into these errors
because they had gone "beyond what is written" to embrace their own
worldly way of thinking about man and God. If they had remained with Scripture
alone, they wouldn't have fallen into their errors.
NEW TESTAMENT PROVISIONS FOR IDENTIFYING AND
PROTECTING THE WORD
We
haven’t yet dealt with the question of “canon” and whether or not it is closed.
In regards to the first question, the identification of the specific books of
the NT canon is an historical question which exceeds the scope of this paper.
In regards to the issue of closure, an issue that not only touches upon the
written Word, but also upon on-going divine proclamations, it must be granted
that there is no verse that actually identifies at which point the canon
becomes closed, nor could there be. However, I hope that the forthcoming
argumentation will speak strongly to the fact that Scripture became closed at
the passing of the Apostles
NEW REVELATION MUST CONFORM TO THE WORD-ESPECIALLY THE
WORD OF CHRIST
The New Testament demonstrates the
same kinds of concerns as does the Old for protecting the Word against errors,
additions, and adulterations. Revelation had to both have divine authentication
and had to conform to the Gospel.
If anyone teaches otherwise and does
not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to
the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing,….(1
Tim 6:3-4).
Paul
was convinced that he was speaking in accordance with the Gospel of Christ (1
Thess.
adamant that this Word be preserved. “As we have said
before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches
any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be
accursed (Gal. 1:9; cp. 1Thess. 4:8).
APOSTOLIC COMMISSION
Christ had always intended that his “twelve”
would be His witnesses. He had chosen them to be with Him and had given them
the authority to do miraculous works (Mat. 10:1ff).
"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you (Please
note that these promises are given specifically to the Apostles and not as
general promises.). But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
things that I said to you” (John 14:25-26).
Furthermore, Jesus had promised
His Apostles that He would give them the authority to do “greater works than
these” (John
"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the
Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of
Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the
beginning (John
"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them
now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into
all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He
will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He
will take of what is Mine and declare it to you (John 16:12-14; cp. Acts 1:8).
Their ministry would be one of proclamation of the Gospel for which they would be enabled to recall His words and to comprehend Scripture. “And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high’” (Luke 24:45-49).
The Apostles consequently understood that they had been specially
commissioned for the task of spreading
the
Gospel. Peter therefore declared that a
twelfth would have to be appointed to take the place of Judas: “...of these men
who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among
us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from
us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts
1:21-22; cp. 3.15, 5.32, 6:2; 10.39-41). Likewise, Peter (2 Pet. 1:16-18), Paul
(1 Cor. 2:7, 10-13), and John (1 John 1:1-3) each recognized that as
“witnesses” and “Apostles” that they had a special role to play within the
Church.
The special office of “Apostle”
was also recognized by the Church in general. Even after the conversion of
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow
citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built
on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the
chief corner stone (Eph. 2:19-20; cp. 3:5)).
MIRACULOUS ATTESTATION
As stated earlier, Jesus had
promised His Apostles that He would be with them and would enable them to do
“greater works”. It was this attestation to their witness that made their
testimony irrefutable and their listeners accountable. Performing miracles
was never the main focus of the ministry of Jesus but rather the preaching of
the Word (Mark
And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them
and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. (Mark
“For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every
transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if
we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the
Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness
both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy
Spirit, according to His own will” (Heb. 2:2-4).
Their hearers could not have
been held accountable nor could they have reason to believe without this
confirmation. Jesus had even said that, “If I had not done among them, the
works which no one else did, they would not have sin” (John
The Book of Acts gives further
testimony of the divine enabling of the Apostles.
And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship,
in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done
through the apostles (
And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of
the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all (
And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done
among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch (
Notice that this calling
pertained specifically to the Apostles and not to others. They specifically
were to be the foundation of the Church (Eph.
I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to
have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent
apostles, though I am nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished
among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds (2 Cor.
Paul acknowledges that to be an
Apostle meant to be able to produce “the signs of an Apostle”, signs that serve
to confirm their message, signs without which the message should not have been
accepted. It is therefore no surprise that the early Church demanded these very
“signs” of the Apostle before they would
receive a message as Scripture. Should we do any less?
CHALLENGES
1. "As far as we
can tell, not all of the books of the New Testament were written by Apostles,
for instance, the books of Luke, Mark, Hebrews, Jude, and James.”
Many scholars maintain that the all
of books of the Bible were either written by the Apostles, by those elevated to
the position of Apostle (like Paul), or by those under the supervision of an
Apostle (Mark for Peter; Luke or Paul’s various cohorts for Paul).
Interestingly, the early Church
didn't include any of the writings of the church Fathers, however venerated,
within their canon. From what we know of the early Church, only apostolic
writings could qualify as Scripture. This coincides with the fact that the
outpouring of miraculous events seems to have ceased with the passing of the
Apostles.
2. "The Catholics
include the Apocrypha in their Bible. Doesn't this undermine "sola
scriptura" since we can't even begin to determine what actually is
Scripture?"
Scripture itself mandates that we
take the Jewish canon as Scripture. ("What advantage then has the Jew, or
what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them
were committed the oracles of God" (
3. "The Roman
Church claims that it's useless to have the Word of God without the
interpretation of God which is supplied by the Spirit through the Roman
Church."
This is a logical fallacy. If the
inspired Word requires an inspired Interpretation, who then is going to
interpret the interpretation. Why shouldn’t the “inspired” interpretation also
require its own interpretation? This leads to infinite regress and is therefore
patently wrong. Besides, the volumes of “inspired”
Roman Catholic writings do not speak in favor of ease and clarity of interpretation
but rather of complexity and subtlety.
Instead, we maintain that the books
of the Bible were written to people in their vernacular and it must have been
assumed that the people could understand the Word. Nowhere are we given the
impression that the written Word was to be suspended until some inspired
interpreter could arrive on the scene. Instead, we see that the Epistles were
to be read directly to the churches along with the rest of Scripture without
the presence of an intermediary shielding the Church from it.
Furthermore, we are supposed to have
a direct relationship to God through His Word without the interference of an
intermediary.
Do you
have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn
himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because
he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin (Rom.
Having this direct relationship with
God is somewhat undermined if we can't understand the Word directly but must
put our faith in an intermediary. The
Roman Church also bears the burden of proving that their multi-contoured
interpretations are the correct interpretations.
4. "You
Protestants are being hypocritical at this point. You too have your teachers,
pastors, and commentaries, and besides, they disagree with one another."
Indeed, we do make use of these
resources as we should (Eph.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM PROTESTANTISM
Bible Councils<---------------------Me
BibleßMeà Councils
Church Fathers Church
Fathers
5. "It is the
Church that determined the canon. It is therefore also the Church that has been
commissioned by God to continue to disseminate His Word through its apostolic
succession."
Although we agree that it was the church leadership who
gave final approval to the canon, the canon was established by God and was
witnessed to by the individual churches. However, this analysis isn't really to
the point. It was indeed the Church which recognized the canon and in some
sense, established it, but it was also the Church who wrote the Word. This fact
certainly didn't give the Church license to claim any word coming from its
members as Scripture. Peter wrote Scripture, but that didn't mean that
everything he wrote or spoke was Scripture.
Peter,
seeing him, said to Jesus, "But Lord, what about this man?" Jesus
said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?
You follow Me." Then this saying went out among the brethren that this
disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die,
but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?"
(John 21.21-23).
Despite being an Apostle,
commissioned and empowered to write Scripture, Peter was wrong in his
interpretation. Likewise, although God had sovereignly worked though the Church
to identify the canon, it doesn't follow that the Roman Church has been granted
the infallible interpretation of the Bible. This represents an unmerited
quantum leap. The era of the Apostles has passed as evidenced by the passing of
the works of the Apostles. Any claims to canonicity must meet the criteria of
conformity to the Gospel, divine attestation, and apostolicity (Eph