However, what is the goal we strive for? We are called to maturity in Scripture and to move on from elementary principles (Heb 5:12 and 6:1). In the OT, even there, God commanded Israel to study the law, read it and write it out (cf Deut 6:9, 11:20). So my question is, if the LORD commanded the less mature old covenant believers to do this, how much more would He command us to do so? (cf Heb 2:3).

As for Paul’s epistles, Peter calls them Scripture (2 Pet 3:16) and I believe the apostles understood they were writing the words of God inspired by the Spirit (cf 1 Cor 7:10). Take note however, of the 2 Pet 3:16 passage and 2 Cor 3:3 – the Spirit is given to all of faith and it is the “ignorant and unstable” who twist them. Jesus says His sheep will hear His voice and turn from strangers by the very new nature He imparts on them, not by simply accepting a visible and established authority.

So Michelle, tradition is important. The Church has authority but it is derived and secondary to Scripture. It is not infallible as the Scripture is infallible.

Would there be a Bible without the Church? NO. However, this proves nothing. The Church bears witness to the truth and Jesus has charged her to guard it. The Church is the ground and pillar of truth. But what is primary? The Bible without the Church is like Jesus without disciples but obviously it is the Word which is Christ who is primary. Once Moses wrote the law, he fell under the same authority as the law and could not revise or add to it. This is why the unique exhortation in Rev 22:18 (the last chapter in the last book of the canon) is so remarkable. It applies directly to Revelation obviously but also applies to all Scripture by extension.

Therefore, we are not talking about the whims and interpretations of man but how Christ leads the Church into all truth by the power of the Holy Spirit.

First of all, I grant that there is no explicit single passage that I can point to prove the point. However, to demand that kind of proof is facile and strawman argumentation. There is not a single passage that expounds the doctrine of the Trinity either or the keeping of the Lord’s Day and “Trinity” cannot be found in the Bible yet it is rightfully necessary for orthodoxy.

Where does one find biblical support therefore for the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the Trinity? Well if I may borrow from Scott Hahn the answer is “everywhere”. He once argued that the idea of purgatory was for him as a former protestant easy to accept for it was taught in the Bible. Support for Sola Scriptura can be more easily defended biblically. It is found clearly in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles who repeatedly argued from the Scriptures alone for final authority. How many times does Jesus say “It is written”? Also what of 2 Tim 3:16 to 17 which states that Scripture alone is sufficient for competence in the faith or Luke addressing his Gospel to Theophilus so that he might have “certainty” of what he had been taught or the noble-minded Bereans who checked what Paul taught by the Scriptures to see if what they said were true (Acts 17:9-11) or Jesus on the Road to Emmaus where He used Scripture to show that the Messiah had to suffer.

The list goes on but I think it is very evident that Scripture is the final authority upheld in the stories of Scripture and only the Word of God will never pass away (Matt 24:35) and Jesus is the Word incarnate.

In any case, I think that’s why Sproul wants the council participants themselves to have performed the miracles. He knows that there are many honest people who believe in miracles performed by other Catholic saints, and that these miracles have lead millions to faith in Christ. But other than the fact that it’s useful for his argument, I don’t see any a priori reason why it should be the council participants themselves who need to perform the miracles, when the saints who obeyed the councils, upheld them, and taught them, performed miracles anyway.

It seems our only competitor in claiming miracles is evangelistic faith healers on T.V. Of course, there are other problems there.

Likewise, he’s quite off when he complains about a certain indeterminacy to Catholic infallible teaching. Men have learned to distinguish between the bible’s science and it’s doctrine: between what is, literally speaking, quite incorrect about what the bible teaches, and what is probably literally true, and what must be literally true. But these three categories are nowhere taught by the bible. And without definitive lists of what is in these three categories, there is a serious indeterminacy in what can be learned infallibly from the scriptures. A fool would then claim: “the bible’s infallibility is meaningless — it’s an empty claim.” But Spoul and I both know that such a claim is itself foolish. . . just because we can’t eliminate unavoidable indeterminacy in the bible’s infallibility, it doesn’t mean that the bible’s infallibility can’t be useful for bringing us definitively towards God.

Well if this is true of the unavoidable indeterminacy of our inerrant book, how much more is it true of the unavoidable indeterminacy of our merely infallible magisterium.

Sincerely,

K. Doran

Thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed the interview. I hope that it might be helpful to you in working your way through “the labyrinth.” I know of Chris Castaldo, but I haven’t had the opportunity to talk with him. When Chris hosted the discussion between Frank Beckwith and Timothy George, I wrote some comments on it here, if you are interested.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

In regards to the doctrine of sola scriptura, I believe that your point gets to the heart of the matter: … “the fact that the Bible does not have a passage that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority, is deeply problematic for those who claim that the Bible alone is our final authority.” I would like to make a few comments about that point.

R. C. Sproul Jr.: The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Those who delight to point this out, however, typically Roman Catholics and the eastern Orthodox, typically miss the point.

I don’t know if the Catholics and Orthodox “delight” in pointing out the obvious, but I disagree that the Catholics are missing the point because they don’t understanding the distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. The real point is that there is nothing in the Bible that says that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of infallible authority for Christians. Catholics that point out the obvious are defending their faith against a Protestant doctrine that has never been part of their faith. All confirmed Catholics are called to defend the faith, and all confirmed Catholics have been given the sacramental grace to defend the faith:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1303 … Confirmation brings an increase and deepening of baptismal grace:
…
- it gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross

I believe that just about any Catholic can use two simple arguments to refute the doctrine of sola scriptura; simple arguments that make use the internal contradictions inherent in sola scriptura. While the arguments may be simple, the hard part in using them is not letting the conversation get sidetracked!

To use these two arguments one must first remember that Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura is not primarily a doctrine about the infallible authority of scriptures – it is instead, a doctrine that was created to deny the authority of the teaching office of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In refuting sola scriptura one should remember that one is not refuting that scriptures speak with infallible authority (since that is what the Catholic Church teaches); one is refuting the ONLY in Luther’s novel doctrine, i.e. that ONLY the Protestant Bible has infallible authority for Christians.

I believe that it is not hard to show that it is unreasonable to ask me to believe in sola scriptura.

One well known way to refute sola scriptura is to ask where the Bible lists the books that belong in the Bible (the canon argument). One will be on unassailable grounds if one sticks to that point and doesn’t get sidetracked into an argument of how the canon was established for the Church. Matt Yonke’s article Hermeneutics and the Authority of Scripture made good use of the canon argument, but the comments to the article became sidetracked by a discussion of how the canon came to be defined. Which was too bad, IMO, because this is a very good article that showed how one can use the canon argument without getting into a discussion of how the canon came to be formally defined. Matt Yonke talks more about the canon argument in this podcast.

How the canon of scriptures came to be formally defined is a complicated subject that requires a fair amount of study before one is competent to argue in that realm. If one is interested in that topic, I have seen positive reviews for this book: Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible , by Gary G. Mitchuta. I haven’t read this book yet, but it is on my list of books to buy. I also understand that CTC is planning to run an article about the canon, which I am also looking forward to reading.

The other easy way to refute sola scriptura is one I learned from listening to Scott Hahn’s conversion testimony. Simply ask to be shown the verses in the Bible that teach that the Protestant Bible is the ONLY source of infallible authority for Christians. The person that attempts to do that will, at best, only be able to show you verses in the Bible that teach that scriptures HAVE divine authority, which is not the point that you are refuting. It is unreasonable to ask me to believe in a doctrine that is not explicitly taught in the Bible if that doctrine claims the Bible is the ONLY source of infallible doctrine.

I think that just about any Catholic can use the two arguments given above to refute sola scriptura if they remember a few things; the argument is not about the infallible authority of scriptures; insist that the person that is advancing sola scriptura doctrine show you the verses in his Bible that explicitly support this doctrine, and don’t let yourself get sidetracked with arguments that are not explicitly taught by the Bible. If the person that is defending sola scriptura cannot defend this doctrine by using only what is explicitly taught in the Bible, I see no reason to believe that the Bible is the only source of infallible doctrine.

Do not fear or doubt, for God is your guide. 4 Ezra 16:75

If this is true then the Holy Spirit would not have led Philip to the Ethiopian official.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts8.htm#v27

The scriptures are clear that we do need teachers to help us with God’s written word. The Bible alone is not what God intended.

http://www.chriscastaldo.com/chris.php

Then why is it necessary for Ruling and Teaching Elders in OPC and PCA churches to vow to accept in all sincerity the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms if the Bible is “perspicuous, understandable”; if it “alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work”?

I should think it would be somewhat redundant, requiring for ordination, a 400-year old commentary in an ecclesial community that claims scripture alone.

Perhaps more ministers should flee, then…