Chapter 1: The Scriptures
Back to the Introduction
Forward to Chapter 2
What is Sola Scriptura?
Given what many Protestants claim for their foundation, the most logical point of approach is to begin with the Holy Scriptures, for if their position on the Scriptures is incorrect, then their entire system is undermined, for it then has no grounding. There are several avenues of approach, but I think it best to begin with this position, and then tackle the other issues. I will use the doctrinal statements of my former church, as well as personal letters and email from Protestant friends and pastors to demonstrate my points.
There are many notions of what Sola Scriptura means among the Protestant groups, so it is necessary to select one. There is a clear and succinct statement to be found in the Constitution and Doctrinal Statements of Grace Church of DuPage. Grace Church of DuPage is the Church I used to attend and where several of my correspondents are members. The following excerpt reflects their position on the Holy Scriptures:
We teach that the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice (Matthew 5:18, 24:35; John 10:35, 16:12-13, 17:17; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20:21).
Grace Church of DuPage Doctrinal Statement, hereafter GCDDS)
There are several points that must be the case if the above is to be true. Firstly, the Scriptures must claim this for themselves. Secondly, there must be, in the Scriptures, either an authoritative list of the books in the canon, or some clear method for determining this list. Thirdly, it must be shown that the Apostles practiced this doctrine (that is, we see in the New Testament, this rule being practiced by those who are not authors of Scripture).
Do the Scriptures teach Sola Scriptura?
If Sola Scriptura is accurate, then the Scriptures must make this claim for themselves. If they do not, the entire system fails, since the claim has, at its core the assertion that the Scriptures themselves are the "only infallible source of faith and practice." In other words, if the "only infallible source of faith and practice" does not teach the above doctrine, then the doctrine cannot be accepted, since it is unbiblical. And if this is the case, then having already rejected tradition, Grace Church specifically, and those who hold to Sola Scriptura in general, have no objective place to ground their doctrine.
In reviewing the above cited verses, as well as other very relevant verses not mentioned, it is quite obvious that the Scriptures themselves, when taken as a whole, do not support this position. A review of the relevant Scriptures, not just those cited above, is important.
Starting with the verse that is used most often, 2 Tim 3:16-17, it is important to note that this verse simply does not support the premise that the above claim would like it to. The verse says:
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.
2 Tim 3:16-17, NKJV
Clearly, we agree that all Scripture is inspired. On this point, there is no disagreement between Orthodoxy and Protestants. On the other hand, there is something that jumps out right away, and that is what the verse does NOT say! It does not say that only Scripture is inspired, just that everything that is Scripture is inspired. That difference may be subtle, but it is quite important. The claim is that only Scripture has authority (based, at least in part on this verse) but such a claim is not substantiated by this verse!
The verse then goes on to give a list of things for which the Scripture is "profitable." Again, it is important to note what the verse does not say. It does not say, or even imply that only Scripture can be used for these purposes, but simply that it is profitable to use for these things. Once again, there is no claim to sole authority for themselves by the Scriptures. The point the author seems to be making is that any writing that is Scripture (whether from the Old Testament, or from the pen of an Apostle or other teacher) is inspired, and that it can and ought to be used for the purposes outlined. This is the Orthodox position. The Scriptures are profitable for many things, and ought to be (and in fact are) used for these purposes.
As for being "equipped for every good work" this applies only to the "man of God." But who is this "man of God" and how do we know who he is? Is it just those appointed as teachers? Most certainly Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wesley, CH Spurgeon, Billy Graham, John MacArthur and Zane Hodges all claim Sola Scriptura yet come to very different positions on important theological issues *. Which of them is the "man of God?" Are they all equipped for every good work even if they teach heresy? If so, then how can we account for the multitude of Biblical interpretations? John MacArthur claims that it is only an "authorized" preacher. *
This immediately forces the question above: which of the reformers or modern teachers is the "man of God" referenced here? The elders of Grace Church church actually condemned me as a heretic for holding a particular doctrine that Martin Luther also held *, stating that holding this doctrine placed me in grave danger of Hell (in Private letter from the elders of Grace Church of DuPage and Grace Church of the Valley, postmarked Sept 2, 1999. Hereafter referred to as Elder Letter). But why should I believe them over Martin Luther? By what authority do they contradict Luther and 1500 years of interpretation before him?
The problem of knowing who the "Man of God" is exacerbated by the following excerpt from John MacArthur's book, Expository Preaching:
The most significant exception in the early period was John Chrysostom (347-407). Along with Theodore of Mopsuestia, he headed the Antiochene school of interpretation, which rejected the allegorical approach [of Augustine]. In sharp contrast with his contemporaries, Chrysostom preached verse-by-verse and word-by-word expositions on many books of the Bible has been called "golden mouthed" because of his great ability to attract an audience and hold them spellbound throughout a sermon. Chrysostom's preaching was characterized by simple Bible exposition, fearless proclamation of morality rather than dogma, deep earnestness, and application directed to the common man.
MacArthur, Rediscovering Expository Preaching, pp 44-45
Why does this present a problem? Well, if John Chrysostom is such a fantastic Bible expositor, why does John MacArthur disagree with him on so many major doctrines? John Chrysostom is the author of the Divine Liturgy as used in the Orthodox Churches today, a liturgy that clearly upholds the "Real Presence" of the Eucharist, that honors Mary as the Theotokos (Mother of God), that uses a creed which declares Baptismal Regeneration, and on and on. St. John wrote the following, excerpted from his pre-communion prayer:
I believe O Lord and I confess that thou are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. And I believe that this is truly thine own immaculate Body and that this is truly thine own precious Blood.
Divine Liturgy of the Holy Orthodox Church
How is it then, that John MacArthur upholds this man as one of the greatest preachers of all time by including the following quote in his book?
"He is generally and justly regarded as the greatest pulpit orator of the Greek church. Nor has he any superior or equal among the Latin Fathers. He remains to this day a model for the preacher."
Schaff, A Selected Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, cited in MacArthur, IBIB, p 45.
It simply defies logic for MacArthur to hold up Chrysostom as an example of the best of expository preaching, but denying nearly every important doctrine that St. John taught! While surely lending support to MacArthur's point that expository preaching is necessary, and historical, it ruins any doctrinal authority for MacArthur, since he upholds as a great preacher a man who directly and distinctly disagrees with his core theology! *
Moving on, we see that Hebrews 4:12 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 make no exclusive claim for the Scriptures being the "only infallible rule of faith and practice." The Hebrews passage says:
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two- edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Heb 4:12, NKJV
This is no claim of exclusivity, but one of effectiveness. There is no doubt that the Scriptures are quite effective in convicting us of our errors, and of showing the depths of our sin and the things hidden in our hearts. This verse does not therefore support the assertion made in the doctrinal statement give above. Once again, we see that something is being read into the text that simply is not there. And quite often, this is the thing that Protestants complain that Orthodoxy does! They cannot have it both ways - if they wish to accuse us of a supposed reading of our doctrine back into the Scriptures, then a similar objection must be raised when they do the same thing.
Similarly, the passage in 2 Peter says:
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:19-21, NKJV
Again, there is no claim to exclusivity of the Scriptures, but a claim that the Scriptures are given to us by men through whom the Holy Spirit has worked. We do not deny this, but affirm the clear work of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures. The error here is to assume that the only place the leading of the Spirit is authoritative is in the Scriptures, but this is simply not the case! The Holy Spirit's leadership, guiding and teaching did not leave us with the death of the last Apostle, but remains active today (cf. John 15:14-26). The Apostles were quite clear that this would be case, and ensured that there was a continuity of teaching authority in the Church to safeguard the deposit of faith. * This will be discussed below, and developed further in the Chapter on Holy Tradition below.
In John 10:35 Christ tells us that the Scriptures may not be broken, and the Holy Church does not break it! For there is nothing we teach which sets aside, contradicts or otherwise ignores or demeans the Scriptures. On the contrary, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura violates this verse, since it itself is found nowhere in the Scriptures, and is in fact, directly rejected!
In 1 Corinthians 2:13, Paul tells us that we receive the truth from the Holy Spirit - but it makes no claim whatsoever that these truths come only via the Scriptures. To the contrary, Paul tells us that teachings of the Holy Spirit are authoritative, period! Unless it can be shown that the Holy Spirit spoke only via the Scriptures *, this verse makes no unique, substantive claim about the Scriptures. On this matter, Paul tells us where the teachings come from:
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
1 Corinthians 2:10-12, NKJV
Are the things "given freely to us by God" only the Scriptures? I find no support for this position in this verse, or anywhere else in the Bible, for that matter.
In John 17:17, the Jesus tells us that God's word is truth. By no means do we dispute this! But there is no statement here that equates "God's word" solely with the "Scriptures" - in fact the Bible claims only that what God says is true. It must be noted here that that the vast majority of references to "the Word" or "God's Word" or "the Word of God" are not about the Scriptures, but about Christ or the Gospel (spoken). When the Christ or the Apostles wish to speak of the written word, they use "the writings" (Greek "graphei") Paul's statement to the Corinthians applies then to all the teachings of God, not just the Scriptures (and the New Testament makes clear, as we shall see below, that there is authoritative teaching outside of the Scriptures).
In Matthew 5:18, Christ speaks of the law not passing away until it is fulfilled. Whether this is a reference to just the Torah, or to all Scriptures is immaterial, for we agree that the writings are given to us to use until the end of this age, when all things will be fulfilled and God will be all in all. But this is no claim for exclusivity, nor a claim for sole authority. Again, we see nothing that claims, in context, to support the idea that only the Scriptures are inspired, nor that they are the only teaching that will survive until the end of the age.
Enough has been said at this point to demonstrate that the above given statement has a faulty understanding of the position of the Scriptures vis-à-vis theology, but there is even more. What is most telling is the verses not mentioned in the above statement, which, when examined, demonstrate quite clearly that not only do the Scriptures not claim sole authority, but in fact reject it!
Thus, before going on to the last of the verse citations in the above doctrinal claim, (John 16:12-13), we should look at other verses which are important in determining what the Scriptures say about the rule of faith and practice. They are not mentioned by Grace Church's doctrinal statement despite the clear relevance to the topic at hand.
The writings of St. Paul are quite explicit on the topic. Writing to the Thessalonians, he says:
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2:13, NKJVBut we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.
2 Thessalonians 3:6-7, NKJ
Quite directly and clearly the Apostle says to the Thessalonians that both his written letters and his oral teaching are to be followed and kept. It is also stated that this applies to faith (i.e. doctrine) and practice.
What is most interesting is that the above verse is most certainly defending the authority of his written teaching! In other words, the Thessalonians accepted his oral teaching without reservation, but some had questioned the authority of his letters! In his letter to them, St. Paul felt it necessary to defend his written teaching as being just as authoritative as his oral teaching. And given this, then quite clearly he could not have been teaching the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that Grace Church holds! On the contrary, everything Paul writes is a confirmation and/or clarification of his oral teachings, or additional material that is important to add to those oral teachings. It is simply impossible, given the above verses, to insist that Paul taught Sola Scriptura or anything like it!
Notice that he praises the Corinthians for doing exactly the thing he insisted the Thessalonians do:
Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. *
1 Corinthians 11:1-2, NKJV
We know from 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (cited above) that Paul means both his written and his oral teaching. There is nothing in this text that implies or teaches that this information was to be written down, or was ever written down. There is no evidence that what Paul was teaching was "enscripturated" (i.e. included elsewhere in the Scriptures). Since there is no claim that every teaching was written down, or statement that everything should be written down, such a claim violates the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and is thus invalid.
Paul also intends that this oral teaching be passed on from one generation of believers to the next, for he tells Timothy:
You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 2:1-2, NKJV
Paul tells us, via this letter, that he has communicated things to Timothy that are to be handed down from believer to believer across the generations. Nowhere does he tell Timothy to hand on only written doctrine, nor as we have seen above, does Paul give special place to written doctrine. With this exhortation to Timothy, it seems quite clear that Paul is concerned that all of his teaching be passed on, not just that which he has committed to writing.
Further demonstration of this can be found in the fact that Paul's writings are for the most part, occasional letters, not systematic theology or purely doctrinal in their purpose. They are, in the final analysis, pastoral, that is, letters written to exhort, correct, reprove or otherwise assist the churches in following the truth of the Faith. This fact, taken together with the direct statements of Paul himself make it quite clear that neither Paul nor those he taught placed the Scriptures above the oral apostolic teaching. And this is the position of the Orthodox Church - that the Scriptures and Apostolic teaching both are given by the Holy Spirit, and not to be set against each other as Grace Church would do.
We see this same practice in the following Old Testament passages. These passages demonstrate that Israel did not follow the practice of Sola Scriptura, and in fact, relied on authoritative tradition:
And he stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king's seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets.
2 Chronicles 29:25, NKJV"Prepare yourselves according to your fathers' houses, according to your divisions, following the written instruction of David king of Israel and the written instruction of Solomon his son.
2 Chronicles 35:4, NKJ
In both cases, authoritative instructions come from non-Scriptural sources - writings that are not in the canon, and statements that are not corroborated in other Scriptures. It is stated quite clearly, though, that these commands are legitimate. Theses verses completely refute the notion of Sola Scriptura, for they show an infallible rule and practice coming from outside the canon.
Appeals to tradition are not unique to the Old Testament, for the New Testament contains similar uses of oral tradition. Paul names Jannes and Jambres as those who opposed Moses (2 Tim 3:8), but these names are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. How then did Paul know them? By oral tradition! Jude does the same thing when he speaks of the Devil and Michael the Archangel contending for the body of Moses (Jude 9). This appears nowhere in the canonical Old Testament, and yet the oral tradition is clearly accurate. (else Jude would be in error, and if the Scriptures contain errors, then we have a very serious problem!)
In the same way, Jesus refers to "Moses seat" (Matthew 23:2) as an authoritative handing down of authority, but this phrase cannot be found in the Old Testament, either. Jesus clearly authenticated at least this piece of oral tradition. Even more so, Jesus says that because of the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses, Israel is bound to obey their rulings - rulings not necessarily found in the Old Testament! Far from Sola Scriptura!
From what we have looked at so far, Paul was most definitely not creating two classes of teaching, one written (which was to be permanent and infallible) and one oral (which was to be temporary and fallible). In no place does Paul instruct that his oral teachings be committed to writing, and in several places commands his oral teachings to be kept. John MacArthur says that the oral teachings of the Apostles (and this would include Paul) are binding and inerrant. * But this creates a problem - did their teaching become fallible and non-binding when they died? Is it reasonable to suggest that those they preached to, upon the death of their teacher said, "He's dead, we can't trust his teaching as authoritative and inerrant any longer? " This borders on the absurd. This admission by John MacArthur is quite damaging to his position. To say that Paul was referring to things that had yet to be "enscripturated," as some Protestants do, is pure eisegesis. There is simply no support for this position in the Scriptures.
Finally, going back to the John 16, as cited in the Doctrinal Statement, we find:
"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.
John 16:12-13, NKJV
This verse does not instruct the believers to write the teachings of the Holy Spirit down (and in fact, Paul must argue for the authority of his writing as noted above), nor does it say that this guiding will end with the apostolic period. Unless such a claim can be found, the above verse supports the Orthodox Position that the Holy Spirit guides the Church (to whom the promise is made) even today, as He has for nearly 2000 years.
But even more so, the Scriptures tell us where to find the pillar and support of the truth: the Church! It is the Church, not the Scriptures, which the Scriptures claim to be the pillar and ground of the truth:
These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth
1 Timothy 3:14-15, NKJV
Thus, if we are looking for the truth of the faith, we are to find it where the Church is! This is not only a clear statement of Paul, but simple logic. As will be developed below, the Church preceded the Scriptures by several decades, and an agreement on the canon by several centuries. There was, in fact, only one place to find the truth, and it was in the Church.
Thus it is quite clear that any claim that the death of the Apostles somehow changed the authority of the Scriptures and placed them over the deposit of faith given to the Church cannot be sustained, for there was no Bible, as we now know it (whether using the Protestant, Roman Catholic or Orthodox canons) for nearly four centuries after Pentecost. At best, the claim could be made at that point, but this presents much larger problems for A, for by this time, the Liturgy was developed, the teachings on the Eucharist, icons, prayers to the saints and many other doctrines which he rejects had been exposited and agreed to be apostolic and authoritative! Again, the he above definition of Sola Scriptura fails. See below for more on the Church and the Scriptures.
To summarize, looking at the witness of both the Old and the New Testament, there is no definitive statement that says that Scripture is the "only infallible rule of faith and practice" and there is plenty of material that teaches that this is not the case. Sola Scriptura, as a premise must then fail, since the Scriptures do not support it, and in fact, reject it.
What is the correct position of the Scriptures? They are the "canon" - the measuring stick - by which all doctrine is to be judged. That is, our doctrine may not contradict the Scriptures. This is the Orthodox position. We keep the traditions of the Apostles, passed on as Paul commanded to faithful men who have in turn taught other faithful men down to our day. To reject these teachings of the Orthodox is to reject the Apostle Paul, who himself said:
And it was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
2 Thessalonians 2:13, NASB
In a letter from the elders of my old church, addressing my objections to Sola Scriptura, the following claim is made:
"The Scriptures claim to be to be God's revealed truth, and not man's opinion, establishes them above all writings as supremely authoritative "(Elder Letter).
Their other claims about what the Scriptures say have already been refuted. The interesting claim in this sentence is that the belief that a claim to being God's revealed truth is enough to make the Scriptures authoritative. The problem with this is that, among others, the Book of Mormon and the Qur'an make the same claims! Are they God's revealed truth simply because they claim to be so? Of course not! And if the above claim is true, Grace Church has a multitude of problems even if we exclude no Christian writing, since the Seven Ecumenical Councils claim to be teaching God's revealed truth, and not man's opinion.
The Orthodox Church claims that her tradition is God's revealed truth, not man's opinion. If a simple claim to being revealed truth is sufficient, then any such claim must be accepted. In other words, if I were to write a book that made such claims, would the claim make it true? There is no possible way that Grace Church will accept this! Unless Grace Church is willing to accept the declarations of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Tradition of the Church as inspired, the measuring stick of a claim to be revealed truth is completely useless.
The Scriptures or the Church - which came first?
Further problems arise from the historical and Biblical fact that the Church came into existence decades (and in some cases, nearly a century) before the books of the New Testament were written. The canon of the New Testament was not settled until late in the 4th century and the canon of the Old Testament was not settled for Protestants until the 16th century. Since Grace Church insists that the Scriptures rule over the Church, it is only logical to conclude that for 15+ centuries, there was nothing to rule the Church. It must be the case, if they are correct, that the Church was rudderless for this time. But this is denied and rejected by the Scriptures which say:
Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you."
Hebrews 13:5, NKJVHowever, 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.
John 16:13, NKJV
We have a promise that Christ will not forsake us, and a promise that the Spirit will guide us into all truth. Was this a "future promise" not to be fulfilled until the Protestant Reformation? There is no evidence of this, especially since Christ was speaking directly to his disciples, and we know that the Holy Spirit came to them on Pentecost. But even claiming that it is some kind of future promise is not enough, for Grace Church does not agree with Luther and Calvin on all doctrinal matters. Was the promise not fulfilled until Grace Church was founded in 1984? And what of disagreements between those who claim to hold to the same doctrine of the Scriptures? * Who are we to believe?
They can't have it both ways! They cannot insist on the Scriptures being the only infallible rule of faith and practice and not have an infallible list of Scriptures, complete, before the foundation of the Church. If not, then the Church has no way to determine accurate doctrine. For Protestants, this must be the case for around 1400 years!
Furthermore, the Scriptures are not, and never were, documents meant to be picked-up and interpreted by anyone who came along. They were written, under the inspiration of God, by the Church and for the Church; were collected, preserved and promulgated by the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit. God gave them to the Church for safekeeping, and appointed her as the "pillar and support of the truth." Since they are documents of the Church, only the Church may make proper use of them, and only teachers called by God and affirmed by the Church may teach from them or interpret them. One cannot simply come along, pick up the Bible and claim to have the authoritative understanding of it and the authority to teach from it, apart from or in opposition to the Church.
What are the Scriptures?
A further problem for the doctrine expressed above, lies in the definition of the Bible given in the same doctrinal statement:
We teach that the Bible is God's written revelation to man, and thus the sixty-six books of the Bible given to us by the Holy Spirit constitute the plenary (inspired equally in all parts) Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:7-14, 2 Peter 1:20-21). (GCDDS, p 29)
The problem lies here in what exactly those 66 books are, and how they have arrived at that number. First of all, there is no infallible list of the Scriptures in the Bible as they define it, and as such, given the claim that the only infallible rule of faith and practice, they cannot have an infallible list of Scriptures! And without such an infallible list, they have no possible way of knowing which books are to be included and which are to be excluded, except their own judgment. But this violates their stated doctrine!
The appeal to the Holy Spirit is of no help, for just as with the claim to being revealed truth, many have made this claim, including the Ecumenical Councils. Furthermore, anyone can make the same claim, and Orthodox and Roman Catholics can make a stronger claim based on the Old Testament canon!
Another often cited claim is that the Scriptures are "self revealing" - that is, it is obvious which books are Scripture and which books are not to the discerning believer. But this gives no assistance to A or Grace Church, for they must insist, against 1500 years of consensus, that the canon was wrong from the earliest times, and was "corrected" only when the Puritans insisted on leaving the Deuterocanon out of their Bibles. Their claim is actually weaker if they resort to this defense.
A side note when discussion the canon is quite interesting. An important man of the Protestant Reformation had no issue with tampering with the canon and dropping books from it. Martin Luther was quite clear that he felt that Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation did not belong in the canon and in his translation, listed them unnumbered at the end of the collection, while listing all of the other books in the exact order we have them today. Luther called James "no canonical book" and called it "false teaching" and said that James had reached "false conclusions." * But why did Luther want to drop these books? He did so because they contradicted, at least in part, his theology. Luther saw quite clearly that James mortally wounded his theology of sola fide. Luther's solution was to drop the book from the canon! He felt he was personally capable of deciding what should and shouldn't be in the Bible.
Let me be clear here. If the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and the Scriptures do not contain a list or some explicit rules for determining their content, then there is no objective way to determine what constitutes Scripture, and the doctrine as expressed is meaningless. Even more, they deny the doctrine because they accept on tradition alone a canon list that was modified in the 16th century! Of course, it is always possible to leave the determination of the canon to each individual (as with the example of Luther above), but that creates an even bigger problem! In reality, Protestants make use of tradition to support their canon lists, and by making use of tradition they deny Sola Scriptura.
It is quite instructive that the canon of the New Testament was not agreed to until the late 4th century. There exist no canon lists prior to that time that agree completely with the modern Protestant canon. If we accept Grace Church's position, then it must be the case that God left the church on earth for over 300 years with no possible way to determine proper doctrine! As noted before, though, the words of Christ show a promise that denies this.
Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth, and Paul told us quite clearly that the Church is the pillar and support of the truth. But neither of these is possible for the first 300+ years if we accept Grace Church's doctrine. To repeat: logically, if we follow them, we must conclude that the church was left rudderless, with nothing to guide her!
This is not the only problem in determining what the Scriptures are. For, according to the doctrinal statement of Grace Church, we find:
We teach that the Word of God is absolutely...inerrant in the original documents. (GCDDS, p 29)
The problem, of course, is that we do not have the originals, nor do we have copies of them. In fact, the Scriptures used by most Protestants are a reconstruction based on the "best scholarly methods." * By deductive logic, it's clear that according to their definition there are no infallible copies of the Scriptures, which renders their entire argument null and void.
A final point to make in this area is that despite claims to Sola Scriptura Protestants make use of tradition in several areas. For example, they do so when referring to the names of the Gospels. Nowhere in the Gospels are their clear statements of who wrote them. The names we have are a result of tradition. To be consistent, those who hold to Sola Scriptura ought to immediately cease using names for the Gospels and refer to them as the 1st Gospel, 2nd Gospel and so on. But even this relies on tradition, for Protestants accept the ordering of the Gospels that has been handed down by tradition as well!
To summarize, Grace Church does not have a) an infallible list of what texts are rightly called "scriptures" b) infallible copies of those texts which he claims are Scripture; c) accurate indications of who wrote the Gospels. These simple facts completely undermine any authority of the writings they are appealing to. By their own standard, the Scriptures simply can't be trusted.
Interpretive Authority
By their doctrine, Grace Church's authority to interpret Scriptures must be found in the Scriptures. If no such authority can be found, then they cannot possibly have authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. They tacitly admit that this is the case by stating:
We teach that it is the responsibility of every believer to ascertain carefully the true meaning and intent of Scripture. (GCDDS, p 29) *
The thing is, they don't really mean this. When confronted with differing understandings of the Scripture, they claim sole authority to expound the Scriptures. On numerous occasions I approached an elder with a different understanding of a verse and was rebuked! All I was doing was carrying out exactly what they said I should do. In fact, it was doing exactly this that led me to Holy Orthodoxy.
Historically speaking, the doctrine of personal interpretation is a very late development. As will be discussed in a later chapter, any doctrine that is of very late development ought to be suspect, for if it is the truth, most certainly the Apostles would have known about it and passed it on to those "faithful men" to whom they entrusted their teaching.
This point is demonstrated in the incident of the Ethiopian eunuch and the Apostle Philip. The eunuch knows that he cannot simply work out for himself what the Scriptures teach, but must seek out an authoritative source:
So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.
Acts 8:30-31, NKJV
In this passage, the eunuch places himself under apostolic authority, and receives the true interpretation of the passage. This is the perfect example of how we are to handle the Scriptures. We should place ourselves under the teaching of the Apostles, which we have seen above involves both the Scriptures and their oral teachings. The eunuch admits exactly what Peter tells us about Paul's writings:
and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation - as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;
2 Peter 3:15, NKJV
My question for the elders of Grace Church is "who taught you?" Where did your doctrines originate? With the Apostles? With the Reformers? How did you develop them? Understanding of Scripture, and the authority to teach it cannot come from self-appointment, but only through by being recognized as one of the faithful men called upon to pass on the teaching (cf. 2 Tim 2:1-2).
Peter confirms this point by insisting that:
knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 1:20-21, NKJV
If no private (that is, individual) interpretation is permitted, the only possible place to receive proper teaching is the Church, and only the Church has the authority to interpret Scriptures. This can also be confirmed by Paul's teaching, which states:
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men,
Eph 4:11-14a, NKJ
Paul is quite clear that only some are gifted as teachers and pastors, not all! That is, not everyone should be teaching the Church, and those who are not gifted by God as pastors should not be trying to teach doctrine! In addition to the requirement for being gifted, we must apply Paul's teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and 3:6-7. If the doctrine being taught does not match that which was handed down by the Apostles, then that teacher is to be avoided.
Use of the Scriptures
As noted, Sola Scriptura depends on private, personal reading of the Bible. But such reading was not the norm until the 19th century! First of all, the vast majority of the New Testament were occasional letters, directed at groups of people, and designed to be read aloud. And given literacy rates, it is no surprise that this is exactly how the Scriptures were used for most of Christian history. It was only in the 18th century that literacy rates rose to a point where private, personal reading was even possible for most people. This, combined with inexpensive reproduction technologies, made the Scriptures publicly available in large quantities at (relatively) low cost.
Historically, the Scriptures were read in the churches, and used in the liturgies (in fact, this was the basic rule of canonicity - the book was approved to be read in the Church). The Gospels themselves were preached orally, and later written down. Protestants, especially of the evangelical type, have consistently and intentionally reduced the amount of Scripture actually read in their services by eliminating the historic liturgies and the lectionaries. At Grace Church, perhaps 10 to 15 verses of Scripture might be read in a 90-minute service. A typical Orthodox liturgy, on the other hand, has hundreds of Scripture verses.
At a typical "Bible church" where expository preaching holds sway, it is quite possible for a member to never hear more than 4 or 5 full books of the Bible, and perhaps a smattering of other readings in a lifetime. On the other hand, the cycle of Orthodox Services is such that the entire Bible, with the exception of Revelation, is read during the course of the year, and the Psalms several times over. Additionally, the liturgical calendar and lectionary guarantee that someone who attends an Orthodox Church will be taught far more theology and dogma, through the use of Scriptures and commentaries (such as Troparia, Kontaktia, Prokeimina, sung during the service) than in most evangelical churches.
Similarly, the hymnology of the modern evangelical church has moved from clear, Biblical origins to the "Jesus loves me" style of hymns. The choruses are often "feel-good" songs about Jesus and God, but do not teach much theology. On the other hand, the hymnology of the Orthodox Church is quite Scriptural, with Psalms making up a huge part of the hymns, and solid theology making up much of the remainder. Again, we see a movement away from the use of Scriptures by evangelicals.
I raise this point because quite often Orthodox Christians are accused of denigrating, despising or otherwise ignoring the Scriptures when exactly the opposite is true! The Church loves, reveres and uses the Scriptures! Attending any Orthodox liturgy will show this. And anyone attending the complete cycle of Holy Week from Palm Sunday through Pascha (i.e. Easter) will hear more Scripture read and commented on in a week than most evangelical churches use in a year!
Many Protestant Churches that claim Sola Scriptura have become, in effect, university lecture halls and have turned Christianity into a purely intellectual exercise. * By eliminating the other senses (touch, taste, smell, sight), and emphasizing hearing, the "Bible Churches" have done a grave disservice to their congregations, limiting worship to hearing. But, as we will see in a later chapter, this is not Biblical Worship! And it is not historically how the Church worshiped. And this from those who claim Sola Scriptura!
Hermeneutics
Another issue having to do with the Scriptures is that members of Grace Church have a flawed hermeneutic - one that is illogical, subjective and ultimately untenable. For example, one person wrote me that his hermeneutic contains, in part, the following claim:
I believe that the hermeneutical rule goes like this - If you have what seems to be a conflict or a contradiction, then you:
- do not interpret the clear by the unclear, but the opposite
- you keep digging until the contradiction/conflict is explained somehow
(personal email from A)
This presents us with a problem immediately - which verses are "clear" and which are "unclear" is completely subjective. In repeated discussions, he claimed that a verse that contradicts his position is "unclear" and then proceed to explain it away by using what he calls a "clear" passage.
An example of what he calls unclear is:
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
James 2:24, NKJV
Insisting that this verse does not mean what it says! But it seems quite clear to me. But this is purely subjective thinking, and as such, can only generate subjective theology, not objective. And what we are after is objective theology (that is, revealed by God through the Holy Spirit). This hermeneutic is flawed from the start. It is made worse, though, when discussing the above verse, he claims 200 verses that support his position and says:
When you have 200+ vs 1, you got to go with the 200 (personal email from A)
But this has NOTHING at all to do with clear vs. unclear! He has in addition said that my doctrine was based on "Just one verse" and then he proceeds to ignore that verse! This is quite strange behavior for someone who insists that all Scripture is inspired by God! Not to mention that in reality there are not 200 verses that support his position, but a small handful that can be read to support his position - and then the others are forced into service of this small handful of verses. *
In the end, his position is so loaded with contradictions as to be unsustainable. He has no way of knowing what the actual canon of Scripture is (unless he resorts to tradition or direct, personal revelation, both of which he denies as true). He has no reasonable hermeneutical method. He has no interpretive authority. And as a result of this, he has no way of determining correct doctrine.
Another statement about hermeneutics from Grace Church is:
We teach that there is only one meaning of Scripture, the meaning which the author, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intended his audience to hear.
(GCDDS, p 29)
The problem with this is that it denies that the author could have intended multiple meanings in his writing! And, in point of fact, Grace Church accepts the multiple meanings of various prophetic verses when they speak of "near and far" meanings in the text! For example, one of the founders of Grace Church, writes the following when discussing interpretive principles to be applied to prophetic verses:
Fifth, it is recognized that many passages of Scripture, in both Testaments, have both far and near implications and applications. In other words, prophecy often operates on two levels of fulfillment. On the first level, there is the divinely revealed "near" prediction relating to a soon-coming event. But on a second level, there is a corresponding "far" prediction that will be fulfilled at a later time, or in the events of the end times. The failure to recognize and apply this principle has caused immeasurable confusion among even the most godly and scholarly students of Scripture.
The Sign, Van Kampen
It seems quite clear from this that at least some verses have multiple meanings, and the author indicates that many "godly and scholarly students of Scripture" have been misled. Having personal knowledge that this author (whom I knew and under whose teaching I sat on numerous occasions before his death) and John MacArthur disagreed strongly on the end times, it seems to me that he is referring, at least in part, to John MacArthur here.
Similarly, my friend A has claimed expertise in interpreting Greek, to the point where he feels that his exegesis is better than those who spoke the language as their mother tongue! In email, he wrote:
If you agree to this, I will do a complete Greek exegesis of the passage, as I learned to do with any Greek passage from my 5 semesters of Greek at MBI. (Personal email from A)
I find it hard to believe that 5 semesters of Greek at Moody Bible Institute (MBI) qualifies A to contradict men like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Iranaeus of Lyon, St. John Chrysostom and others who spoke Greek as their mother tongue! In fact, having studied under the same professor at Moody, I recall the professor's warnings about claiming any authority in doing translations! These kinds of claims are quite common in the Protestant community, with various translations and retranslations coming from many sources. As an example, the Jehovah's Witnesses claim that their "translation" of the Greek is more accurate than any other. Why should I trust some individual's interpretation of the passage over those of the Church Fathers? This demonstrates a problem both with hermeneutics and interpretive authority. It is especially problematic when the new exegesis goes against 1500+ years of Church teaching (or more)!
How Many Witnesses?
The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura fails the "witness" test as stated by Scripture. Sola Scriptura attempts to stand on a single witness: the Protestant canon of scholarly reconstructed texts. But a single witness is never enough in the Scriptures. On general topics, such as witnesses for murder, for sins, etc, the Scriptures require multiple witnesses (cf Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6, Deuteronomy 19:15), legal transactions require multiple witnesses (cf Jeremiah 32:10-12), and most of all, Matthew 18:16, which requires multiple witnesses to testify to the truth. Where can these be found in the case of Sola Scriptura? Based on the above definition, all other witnesses are explicitly excluded.
The apostle John invokes this very idea to testify to Christ, and if such testimony is used of Christ, how much more so do the Scriptures need multiple witnesses! John writes :
This is He who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.
1 John 5:6-9, NKJV
Many scholars actually dispute the inclusion of these verses on textual grounds, and the NASB & NIV follow their thinking in the main text, relegating them to footnotes.
Note well that the Holy Spirit testifies to the truth, but those who hold to Sola Scriptura have no recourse in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, for they claim:
We teach that the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice (GCDDS, p 29)
This statement effectively excludes any input from the Holy Spirit on the matter. And this is in direct contradiction to the above statement that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth, as well as the clear statement in John's Gospel that the Holy Spirit will testify to all things.
Does Sola Scriptura Work?
Finally, having shown the biblical problems with Sola Scriptura, we turn to a practical problem. That question is whether or not Sola Scriptura works, or has ever worked. And the answer is a resounding "no!" A prime example of this can be seen in the serious doctrinal differences found in Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchton, the Anabaptists, and so on. Each group claimed to be following the Scriptures, but was unable to convince the others that they are correct. And it has always been so. When presented with Scriptures and Church teaching, Arius brought out his own list of Scriptures to deny that Christ is God. We find, quite often in the history of the Church, men presenting Scriptures to deny truths that were always and everywhere taught - truths that most Protestants accept as "biblical fact" (such as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, etc).
What we have is a system that is not only unbiblical, but also unworkable. If Sola Scriptura worked, there would not be over 20,000 Protestant groups all claiming to base their doctrine on "Scripture alone." In the history of the Church, there has never been a period of non-stop schism such as exists in the Protestant community - schisms that continue to divide those who claim the sole authority of the Bible. This happens because, in the end, there is no authority except the individual's interpretation. It is, so to speak, "every man his own pope."
The irony of this situation was that the Protestant Reformation had, as one of its goals, eliminating the authority of an individual (in the person of the Pope), when, in point of fact, it has simply recreated it and spread anarchy amongst believers! When Protestants claim to interpret the Scriptures authoritatively, they are making, in effect, the same claim that Pius IX did - that he is the sole individual able to know the truth and promulgate it! There is not one iota of difference between the declarations of Vatican I on the authority of the Pope and the authority claimed by Protestant expositors! This can be demonstrated by the following passage in the letter I received from Grace Church:
The elders of Grace Church of DuPage and Grace Church of the Valley unanimously agree that the Orthodox Church's position with respect to the Scriptures and personal salvation are heretical errors, not spiritual truth. This letter is intended to refute those errors and sincerely call you to abandon them. Having heard from you in person and in writing, we reject your doctrines as false teachings and call on you to turn away from them immediately. (Elder Letter)
No Papal Bull could be more forceful or claim more authority. The Reformation has come full circle on the issue - but instead of one pope, there is now anarchy with every man his own pope.
Summary
This notion of a false appeal to Scriptures is not new. Vincent of Lerins writes ca AD430:
Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,-through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavor to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old.
But the more secretly they conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to condemn divine words. They do, in fact, what nurses do when they would prepare some bitter draught for children; they smear the edge of the cup all round with honey, that the unsuspecting child, having first tasted the sweet, may have no fear of the bitter. So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the label, suspects the poison.
For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, Chapter 25, Vincent of Lerins
Vincent is not the only Church Father to note this, for Athanaseus had similar problems with Arius, who A would most certainly condemn as a heretic. The issue was not solved simply by an appeal to the Scriptures, but to the teachings of the Apostles, handed down by the Church from generation to generation.
Time and again it can be seen that Sola Scriptura does not resolve problems, but in fact creates them! More divisions have been caused by appeal to "Scripture alone" than any other single issue in the history of the Church. The repeated fracturing and splintering of Protestantism is a direct result of Sola Scriptura, and leaves individual Protestants with nobody but themselves as final authority on what the Scriptures say.
To this point, we have successfully demonstrated that the Scriptures do not claim what A says they do, but in fact directly contradict his claims. If not for the severity of this other errors, it would be enough to end here and call him to come back to the apostolic faith, as taught by the Scriptures. But this has been repeatedly presented to him, and he has rejected it, so it is necessary to continue.
IntroductionChapter 2 The Adams
Suggestions/questions about this website: