|
Opening Argument
----------------
James White
It is good to be with you this evening on a rather chilly
evening outside. You need to remember that in Phoenix it has not
been this cold in probably about 3,000 years. But I enjoy it, the
air is clean and it is good to be with you here in Omaha.
I want to take you back, as we discuss sola
Scriptura this evening, to the period following the Council of
Nicaea in 325. You may recall from your church history that the
Council of Nicaea the full deity of Our Lord Jesus Christ was
affirmed by the council--that Jesus Christ was not a creature, he
was not a created being-- yet you may also be aware that in the
period that followed the Council of Nicaea, for the next number
of decades, Arianism reigned supreme in the Church. For example, Athanasius, the great bishop, was driven from his See five times
during the period of time following Nicaea because of the
political activities of the Arians. During that particular period
of time, Athanasius, writing to his friend, Adelphius, against
the Arians, wrote the following. Please listen closely.
"Such then, as we have above described is
the madness and daring of those men (speaking of the Arians). But
our faith is right and starts from the teaching of the Apostles
and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the New
Testament and the Old. For the Prophets say, 'Behold, the virgin
shall conceive and bear a son and they shall call his name
'Immanuel' which is being interpreted 'God with us.' What does
that mean, if not that God has come in the flesh? While the
apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'For
as much then as Christ suffered for us in the flesh' and in what
Paul writes, 'Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of our
great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.'"
Now why do I bring this to your attention?
First of all, if you read Athanasius' letter, he argues solely
from the Scriptures as the rule of faith against the Arians. He
argues that this is what defines what Christians are to believe.
In fact, if you listened to the passages that he cited, for
example, Titus 2:13, a passage that I have often cited in dealing
with modern Arians and there are many of them out there
today--Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, individuals
who deny the deity of Christ--Titus 2:13 is one of the passages
that I have frequently used as well. He uses those same
Scriptures and he defines the apostolic tradition by the words of
Scripture. Apostolic tradition, in this letter from Athanasius,
refers to the Scriptures and that may explain why this same
writer, Athanasius, said, for example, "The holy and
inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for the
preaching of the truth." And he also said, "These
canonical books are the fountain of salvation so that he who
thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In
these alone the school of piety preaches the Gospel. Let no man
add or take away from them."
When the early Church Father, Basil, was
attacked by his opponents regarding his beliefs about the
Godhead, he replied much like Athanasius. When his opponents
talked about the customs they had he responded, "If custom
is to be taken in proof of what is right then it is certainly
competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which
obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to
follow them." Listen closely. "Therefore, let
God-inspired Scripture decide between us and on whichever side be
found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that
side will be cast the vote of truth."
Now we have come here this evening to discuss
sola Scriptura. Well, what does that mean? Well, first, I'd like
to start with the negatives, what it doesn't mean, because I've
discovered there's a lot of confusion about what it does mean.
Let me tell you some of the things it doesn't mean. First of all,
it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. It is
not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is
not exhaustive in every detail. In John 21:25 we read that if
everything that Jesus said or did had been recorded that the
world itself would not be large enough to contain the books that
would be written, but it does not have to be exhaustive, either,
to be the rule of faith for the Church. We don't need to know the
color of Matthew's eyes. We don't need to know the menu of each
of the apostolic meals of the Lord Jesus by the Sea of Galilee to
have a sufficient rule of faith for the Church. Curiosity that
goes beyond what God has revealed is not godly.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's
authority to teach. I Timothy 3:15 describes the church as the
pillar and foundation of the truth. And what is the truth? The
truth, of course, is Jesus Christ. And how do we know Jesus
Christ? We know Jesus Christ from his Word. The Church teaches
truth and calls men to believe in the truth, calls men to believe
in Jesus Christ. But the Church does not add revelation or rule
over the Scriptures. The Church, being the Bride of Christ,
listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in the God-breathed
Scriptures.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word
was, at one time, spoken. Apostolic teaching was authoritative in
and of itself, yet the Apostles proved their message from
Scripture. You'll note, for example, Paul's example, in Acts 17:2
or Apollos in Acts 18:28 demonstrating the consistency that
existed between the message that they preached and the Old
Testament Scriptures. And remember, also, that John commended
those in Ephesus in Revelation 2:2 for testing those who claimed
to be Apostles, and how would they have done that, if not by the
Scriptures?
And finally, number four, it is not a denial
of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the
Church. It is in no way a denial that the Holy Spirit is
absolutely, positively necessary for anyone to have a full
understanding of the Scriptures because they need to be
spiritually discerned.
What then, is sola
Scriptura?
Well, the doctrine of sola Scriptura simply
states that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are
sufficient to function as the regula fide, the rule of faith, for
the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found
in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in
Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be
more specific, I provide the following definition. The Bible
claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the
Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any
supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as
God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon
man, church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent,
self-interpreting and self-authenticating. The Christian Church
looks to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith
and the Church is always subject to the Word and is constantly
reformed thereby.
Now I want you to recognize that I am
emphasizing that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is based upon the
inspiration of Scripture. Now that term, inspiration, that you
will find, for example, in II Timothy 3:16, is really not the
best way of rendering the term. The Greek term, theopneustos, is
best rendered as "God-breathed." And in fact, in the
New International Version, that is how it is rendered. In II
Timothy 3:16 we read that "All Scripture is God-breathed and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for
training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be
complete, fully equipped for every good work." We learn from
this that Scripture's authority is God's authority. You don't
have Scriptural authority over here then God's authority over
here. You don't have different authorities in the Church. The
authority of the Church is one: God's authority. And when God
speaks in Scripture that carries His authority.
Notice, for example, from the words of Our
Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 22 when he is talking with the
Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, he says, "You are in
error because you do not know the Scriptures, nor the power of
God, for in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in
marriage but are as the angels in Heaven. But concerning the
resurrection of the dead have you not read what God spoke to you,
saying 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of
Jacob.'" Please notice that from the Lord Jesus' perspective
that which was found in Scripture was God speaking and he held
those men responsible for what God had said to them, even though
what was spoken had been written a thousand years earlier.
Scripture is God speaking to man. It is theopneustos.
God-breathed.
Note as well Peter's words in II Peter
1:20-21, "Knowing this first of all that no Scriptural
prophecy ever came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For
no prophecy ever was born by the will of man. Rather, while being
carried along by the Holy Spirit, men spoke from God." That
is why the Scriptures can function as a rule of faith for the
Church, because they are God-breathed. What God says is the final
authority for the Church.
The great reformer of Geneva, John Calvin,
said concerning this, "This, then, is the difference. Our
opponents (speaking of the Roman Catholic Church) locate the
authority of the Church outside God's Word, that is, outside of
Scripture and Scripture alone. But we insist that it be attached
to the Word and to not allow it to be separated from it. And what
wonder if Christ's bride and pupil be subject to her spouse and
teacher so that she pays constant and careful attention to His
words. For this is the arrangement of a well-governed house. The
wife obeys the husband's authority. This is the plan of a
well-ordered school, that there the teaching of the schoolmaster
alone should be heard. For this reason the Church should not be
wise of itself, should not devise anything of itself but should
set the limit of its own wisdom where Christ has made an end of
speaking. In this way the Church will distrust all the devisings
of its own reason. But in those things where it rests upon God's
Word the Church will not waiver with any distrust or doubting but
will repose in great assurance and firm constancy."
Now, I think I can speak for Gerry to say that
he does not deny that the Scriptures are inspired or inerrant. In
fact, we spoke about that on the phone this week. He does not
deny that. And I have to bring that up because there,
unfortunately, are many Roman Catholics today who deny the
inerrancy of Scripture and the full inspiration of Scripture,
just as there have been liberal Protestants who have done the
same thing. I believe that Gerry Matatics will agree that the
Scriptures are a rule of faith for the Church. They are part of
the rule of faith for the Church. But Mr. Matatics denies that
the Scriptures are the rule of faith for the Church alone. The
Roman Catholic Church claims there's something missing from the
Protestant understanding. Something needs to be joined to
Scripture, that when you put the two together gives you the
complete picture. According to Roman Catholicism what is missing
is oral tradition. Oral tradition. Oral tradition, the spoken
Word of God and the written Word of God, together making the
whole Word of God sacred tradition with a capital S and a capital
T.
For most Roman Catholic writers sacred
tradition is made up of both the written tradition, which is
Scripture, and the oral tradition, which the Council of Trent
defines as follows, "It also clearly perceives that these
truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the
unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles, from the
mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the
Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitting as it
were, from hand to hand. Following then, the examples of the
orthodox father, who receives and venerates with a feeling of
piety and reverence, all the books, both of the Old and New
Testaments, since one God is the author of both. Also the
traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having
been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost and
preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession."
Though it has changed with time Vatican II
said, "It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred
Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accordance
with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together
that one cannot stand without the others and that all together
and each in its own way, under the action of the Holy Spirit,
contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. She has always
regarded the Scriptures together with sacred tradition, as the
supreme rule of faith and will ever do so. Sacred theology rests
on the written word of God, together with sacred tradition as its
primary and perpetual foundation."
Now this assertion of a second inspired source
of God's truth has led, I feel, to some tremendously false
beliefs. For example, John O'Brien, author of the popular work
The Faith of Millions, wrote in a pamphlet entitled Finding
Christ's Church, "Great as is our reverence for the Bible,
reason and experience compel us to say that it alone is not a
competent nor a safe guide as to what we are to believe."
That is certainly not what I believe to be the faith of the
Church historically or in any other way. As time permits this
evening we shall see that such was not the view of the Apostles,
of the Lord Jesus Christ, the prophets of old or the early
fathers.
But right now, I want to focus our attention
on what this debate must be about. To defend sola Scriptura is,
in a sense, impossible. Why? Well, because sola scripture is a
negative. It is a statement that there is no other source of
authority for the Church. Let me give you an example. If I pull
out this pen here and say, "This pen is absolutely unique.
It is the only pen like it in all the world." How would I
prove that? How could I prove that this is the only pen like it
in all the world? I would have to go to every desk drawer, to
every store in all the world and have to get on a spaceship and
go to the moon and to Mars and to every planet in the cosmos and
search everywhere to find out if there's another pen like this. I
couldn't prove it. But, if I came in and made this assertion,
that this is the only pen like this in the world, it would be
very easy for Mr. Matatics to win that debate. Know how? He gets
in his car, he goes down to the local business store, or
stationery store, or whatever it is and he goes in and gets a
Cross Medallist pen and he brings it in and stands up at the
podium and he puts it next to this one and says, "See,
there's another one just like it." And the debate's over.
The debate's over. The uniqueness of this pen has been shown to
be false.
Well, the Roman Catholic position must
demonstrate that that the "oral tradition" that is
supposed to exist not only contains revelation from God that
differs in content from what is found in the New Testament, but
that this "oral tradition" is theopneustos, that is,
God-breathed, inspired. Without such a demonstration, the denial
of sola Scriptura is empty and meaningless. Remember the title of
the debate. We are talking about an infallible rule. Is the Bible
the only infallible rule? And the only way to demonstrate that's
wrong is to point to another infallible rule, that when placed
next to Scripture shows that Scripture is not unique in being
God-breathed, inspired revelation from God. That is the task that
lies before us.
Now when the Mormon people, for example, claim
that they have revelation outside the Bible in the Book of
Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and the
teachings of the Living Prophet in Salt Lake City, I challenge
them on the basis of the inconsistency between the pretended
revelation they put forward and the Scriptures themselves. They
teach two different things, so obviously the Holy Spirit is not
the author of both. In the same way I challenge the Roman
Catholic claim that there is an additional revelation from
God--this mysterious oral tradition that supposedly needs to be
added to the Scriptures to have all that God would have us to
have.
Now, to win this debate, since Mr. Matatics
already agrees with me, I believe, that the Bible is inspired
and, hence authoritative, he must demonstrate that there is an
oral tradition that is both unique in its contents, that is that
it contains revelation other than what we have in the New
Testament or the Old Testament and that it is inspired on exactly
the same level as the New Testament, that is that it is
God-breathed. If not, if it is on some lower level of
inspiration, if it is not God-breathed, then obviously you cannot
unequally yoke it with the Bible. It cannot be an equal
authority. Oral tradition must be inspired in exactly the same
way as the Scriptures for it to function as Rome has claimed.
Now, how would be go about looking at this
subject? Well, I notice that the flier said to bring your Bible,
so I hope that you did. I'd like to ask you to look with me at
Matthew 15:1-6. I will begin, as time is fleeting, with verse 3,
"Jesus replied, 'Why do you break the command of God for the
sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and
mother and anyone who curses his father and mother must be put to
death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother,
'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me as a
gift devoted to God,' he is not to honor his father with it. Thus
you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition."
You're probably familiar with the background.
The Korban rule. The rule that allows you to dedicate your
material possessions to the temple, and hence not have to support
your parents in their aging years. It's not my intention to go
into the background so much as to point out the principle that is
here presented to us. The Jewish people believed that their
traditions were divine in that they had been given to Moses and
passed down to that current generation. Now I don't know if
there's anyone here tonight who believes that. I don't. I don't
think that the Roman Catholic Church believes that the traditions
of the Scribes and Pharisees or the Sadducees were in point of
fact divine traditions that had been handed down from Moses to
the time of the Lord Jesus Christ. But the point is, that that's
what they believed and so what did the Lord Jesus do? What he
tell all of us to do? To test that teaching, that tradition, not
just corrupt tradition, any tradition, on the basis of the
Scriptures. "Thus (verse 6) you nullify the Word of God for
the sake of your tradition." Obviously the Word of God does
not fall into the category of tradition in that passage, does it?
And yet it does in so many Roman Catholic writings as a part of
sacred tradition. Tradition is tested by Scripture.
Now one of the most important passages that we
need to look at is II Thessalonians 2:13-15. Let me read just
verse 15. I'll read verses 13 and 14 in a moment.
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the
traditions which you were taught either by word or by a letter of
ours." Now it is alleged by Roman Catholic apologists that
here you have a positive command to pass on the oral tradition as
a separate tradition, separate from the written, that this is to
be passed on through the Church down through the ages. But is
that what we have here? No, this is a command to stand firm and
hold fast to a single body of traditions already delivered to the
believers. There is nothing future about this passage at all. He
says to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that will be
delivered? No, already has been delivered to the entire church,
not just the episcopate, not just the bishops, but to everyone in
the church at Thessalonica.
This single body of traditions was taught in
two ways. First, orally, that is, when Paul was personally with
the Thessalonians, and by epistle, that being the first letter of
Paul to the Thessalonians. Now, what does the term
"orally" refer to? For the Roman Catholic to use this
passage to support his position, two things must be established.
First, that the oral tradition element refers to a specific
passing on of revelation to the power of the episcopate and
secondly that what is passed on is different in substance from
what is found in the New Testament.
With reference to the first issue, we note
that the context of the passage is the Gospel. Note again the
verses which immediately precede verse 15--verses 13 and 14,
"But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren
loved by the Lord, for God chose you from the beginning for
salvation by the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through faith
in the truth, unto which he called you by our Gospel, so that you
might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." The
traditions of which Paul speaks are not traditions about Mary or
papal infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul is talking
about is simply the Gospel message itself. Note what he said in
his first epistle to the Thessalonians about what he had spoken
to them, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, "And for this reason we also
constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of
God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for
what it really is, the Word of God, which also performs its work
in you who believe."
Now, in II Thessalonians 2:15 Paul says to
"stand firm", the Greek term, stekete. He also uses
that term in I Corinthians 16:13, when he says, "Be on your
guard. Stand firm in the faith. Be men of courage. Be
strong." What Paul is saying in II Thessalonians 2 is that
we are to stand firm in the Gospel message which has been
preached to the people. There is nothing here about Immaculate
Conception or papal infallibility, or some second source of
inspired revelation whatsoever.
In the brief two minutes I have left, please
turn with me to II Timothy 2:2. "But you, my child, be
strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus. And which you have
heard from me in the presence of many witnesses these things
entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others. Join in
suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus." Now did Paul
teach something different in the presence of many witnesses than
he taught in his epistle to the Romans or the Galatians?
Certainly not. The deposit that has been given to Timothy is not
different than what we have in Acts, Romans or Galatians. And I'm
not the first one to argue that.
I will close my presentation by reading from
the early Church Father, Tertullian, who addressed this very
passage when refuting those false teachers of his day who claimed
that the Apostles had two different teachings, one which was open
and known to all and a second, secret doctrine known only to a
few.
He says, "But here is just said the same
madness and their allowing indeed that the Apostles were ignorant
of nothing and preached not any doctrines which contradicted one
another but the same time insisting that they did not reveal all
to all men. For that they proclaimed some openly and to all the
world, but they disclosed others only in secret and to a few
because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy, 'O,
Timothy guard thou which is entrusted to thee,' and again, 'That
good which is committed unto thee, keep.' What is this deposit?
It is so secret as to be characterized as a new doctrine or is it
a part of that charge which he says, 'This charge I committed
unto thee, son, Timothy' and also that priesthood to which says,
'I charge thee in the sight of God who quickeneth all things and
before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius
Pilate that thou keep this commandment.' Now what is this
commandment and what is this charge? From the preceding and
succeeding context it will manifested there is no mysterious hint
darkly suggested in this expression about some far-fetched
doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving
any other doctrine than that which Timothy had heard from
himself, as I take it, publicly before many witnesses," is
his phrase.
I agree with him about that and as time allows
this evening we will continue to look at what the Bible says
about the concept of tradition and the sufficiency of the
Scriptures.
Thank you.
|
