Et Verbum: Apologetics for the Masses

from John Martignoni

Hey folks, I've got another YouTube video ready for you. This one is

on the subject of Sola Scriptura – the Bible Alone. I hope you enjoy

it. Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pW7l2CC_20

Also, I want to thank all of those who wrote in with suggestions for

topics to use in the first 3 tracts I'm developing. I will think about

and pray about all the suggestions and see what happens, but the two

most popular topics people wanted to see were: 1) How Are We Saved;

and 2) The Rapture. Also, a decent number wanted to see something on

authority. So, we'll see what happens. I hope to begin working on them

at the beginning of the year.

Introduction

This week, since the video I'm releasing is on the topic of Sola

Scriptura, I thought I would do the newsletter on the same topic.

Someone sent me a Q&A on Sola Scriptura from the website:

www.gotquestions.org.

The website describes its mission in this way: "We will do our best to

prayerfully and thoroughly research your question and answer it in a

biblically-based manner. It is not our purpose to make you agree with

us, but rather to point you to what the Bible says concerning your

question. You can be assured that your question will be answered by a

trained and dedicated Christian who loves the Lord and desires to

assist you in your walk with Him. Our writing staff includes pastors,

youth pastors, missionaries, biblical counselors, Bible/Christian

College students, Seminary students, and lay students of God's Word."

I love it when people say things like that: "It is not our purpose to

make you agree with us, but rather to point you to what the Bible says

concerning your question." Malarkey! What they're really saying is:

"If you don't agree with us that means you don't agree with the Bible,

because we have THE correct interpretation of the Bible." So if you

disagree with them that makes you a heretic or, even worse, a Catholic

or some such thing. I wonder if any of their "writing staff" would

claim to be infallible?

Anyway, I will post the entire answer first, and then go back and put

my comments betwixt and between.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

From the website: http://www.gotquestions.org/sola–scriptura.html

Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the

idea of "alone," "ground," "base," and the word scriptura meaning

"writings"—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that

Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the

Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. "All

Scripture is God–breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,

correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For

centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior

in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were

in fact contradicto ry to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to

saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation,

infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the

founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant

Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its

unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Ch urch threatened Martin Luther

with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's

reply was, "Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of

Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by

means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my

conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract,

for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here

I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!"

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible

does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the

Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith

and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially

important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible

declares itself to be God–breathed, inerrant, and aut horitative. We

also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So,

while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it

most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its

message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against

tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra–biblical

and/or anti–biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God

expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the

Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is

true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of

tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith.

Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in

full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible

are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola

scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal

opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The

essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible

alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full

agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, "Do your best

to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not

need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions.

Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base

church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and

Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the

explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for

the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in

clarifying and organizing Christ ian practice. At the same time, in

order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in

disagreement with God's Word. They must be based on the solid

foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman

Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions

on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on

traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony

with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to

sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis

for faith and practice.

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola

scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially

agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded.

Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500

years after the church was founded. How, then, we re early Christians

to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full

Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of

the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on

Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy

of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high

rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola

scriptura handle these issues?

The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that

Scripture's authority is based on its availability. This is not the

case. Scripture's authority is universal; because it is God's Word, it

is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available,

or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that

Scripture is God's Word. Further, rather than this being an argument

against sola scriptura, it is actua lly an argument for what the

church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church

should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority.

While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete

copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some,

most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders

should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so

they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be

made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be

well–trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon

traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the

church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2

Timothy 4:2).

Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the

problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughou t the centuries

is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the

determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to

us. Through the careful study of God's Word, it is clear that many

church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact

contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura

applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God's

Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or

disagree with, God's Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us

back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura

ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth,

never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

www.gotquestions.org:

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of

"alone," "ground," "base," and the word scriptura meaning

"writings"—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that

Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the

Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. &;All

Scripture is God–breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,

correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

My Response:

No problems with that definition. But, there is a problem with the

use of 2 Timothy 3:16 as a text that supports the dogma of Sola

Scriptura. If 2 Tim 3:16 supports anything along the lines of Sola

Scriptura, then it supports Sola Old Testament Scriptura. The

scripture Paul is talking about with Timothy, that Timothy has known

since "childhood," is the Old Testament scripture. Even though

Timothy was relatively young, in his childhood he would have had only

the Old Testament and possibly…possibly…a few of the books of the New

Testament. So, if 2 Tim 3:16 is supporting Sola Scriptura, then what

it is saying is that only part of the Bible is necessary, since most

of the New Testament had not yet b een written when Timothy was in his

childhood.

www.gotquestions.org:

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For

centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior

in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were

in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints

and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant

baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder

of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was

publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings.

The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and

death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, "Unless

therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the

clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I

have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the

Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a

Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no

other; may God help me! Amen!"

My Response:

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church has never made its traditions

"superior in authority to the Bible." Sacred Tradition is considered

by Catholics to be on the same level with the Bible, not superior to

it. Sacred Traditon and Sacred Scripture are both the Word of God.

The Word of God in one form is not "superior" to the Word of God in

another form.

"This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to

the Bible." What they are actually saying is that they believe many

Catholic practices are " in fact contradictory to [their private,

fallible interpretations of] the Bible." What's really ironic in this

paragraph is that they cite Martin Luther as the hero of the

Deformation, yet one of the "unbiblical" traditions they specifically

mention – infant baptism – was believed in and practiced by Martin

Luther and the Lutherans. So, how do they reconcile the fact that

Martin Luther, their hero, the man who first shouted and shouted most

loudly "Sola Scriptura," the "rallying cry of the Reformation,"

believed in a tradition (infant baptism) that these folks say is

outside of scripture?

Another irony is that they call Martin Luther the "father" of the

Protestant Reformation. What about the passage in Scripture that

says, "Call no man your father?" (Matt 23:9).

Finally, Martin Luther's words strike at the heart of the problem with

Sola Scriptura. Luther is essentially declaring himself to be his own

Pope, Pastor, and Theologian. Unless "I" am convinced; unless "I" am

persuaded. In other words, Luther is saying that he answers to no

authority other than himself when it comes to matters of faith. And,

every believer in Sola Scrip tura does basically the same thing.

Everyone is Pope, Pastor, and Theologian for their own private

denomination, answering to no authority in matters of faith and morals

other than themselves and their private, fallible interpretation of

the Bible.

One last irony here: Scripture is considered the Word of God because

of the witness of the Catholic Church, but Martin Luther, and every

other Sola Scriptura believer, reject the witness of the Catholic

Church when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. So, they

rely on the authority of the Church to know what the Bible is in the

first place, but then they reject the authority of the Church once

they open the Bible.

www.gotquestions.org:

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible

does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the

Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for fait

h and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially

important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible

declares itself to be God–breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We