Refutation of James McCarthy's "Sola Scriptura?"
James's words are in blue; mine are in black.
Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.
Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offensive. A typical argument sounds something like this:
The Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith, because the first Christians didn't have the New Testament. Initially, Tradition, the oral teachings of the apostles, was the Church's rule of faith. The New Testament came later when a portion of Tradition was put to writing. It was the Roman Catholic Church that produced the New Testament, and it was the Church that infallibly told us what books belong in the Bible. It is the Church, therefore, that is the authoritative teacher of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not even taught in the Bible. The rule of faith of the Roman Catholic Church, therefore, is rightly Scripture and Tradition together.
That's a nice argument against sola scriptura. James would make a good Catholic apologist ;)
Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:
Christians have never been without the Scriptures as their rule of faith.
The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.
The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the early Church? Really? Then why did Paul, referring to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which would eventually become the New Testament and Apostolic Tradition), say, "Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me" (2 Timothy 1:13)? The standard of truth was Tradition, that which Timothy HEARD from Paul, not merely learned or read. The Scriptures that Timothy had most likely consisted of the Old Testament and possibly some of Paul's letters.
The Church did have the Old Testament, but that wasn't their sole standard; otherwise, they would've believed in sola Old Testament, which is ridiculous. The Old Testament alone couldn't have been enough to learn about salvation through Jesus Christ. If it were, the Jews would have had no problem in believing that Jesus was the Messiah, but they had a big problem.
There is no doubt that the early Church relied mostly on the oral teachings of the apostles because that's all there was to teach them about Jesus. Gradually, as the New Testament books were written, they took their place alongside the Old Testament and the rest of Tradition (that which would be written in Scripture later and that which would never be written in Scripture). However, the early Church clearly relied on the apostles' oral teachings; they were commanded to obey them (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Unless Protestants can show that this command to obey the oral Tradition ended, there's no reason to believe in sola scriptura.
Scripture is not simply written Tradition.
Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scripture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer's recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ's teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture-or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.
But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction.
The oral teachings of the apostles were the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13), equal to Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Scripture is obviously just the teachings of the apostles (which were the word of God) written down.
Scripture IS written Tradition, as I have shown. The part that Protestants and Catholics disagree on is whether ALL of the Tradition was written down or not.
Peter writes,
Here we see that Scripture is not "the prophet's own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated "interpretation" means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have "its origin in the will of man" (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 (NIV)
I agree with James that Scripture is God's word, but I disagree that it's all of God's word.
In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.
James makes two mistakes here:
1) He forgets that what the apostles preached was also God's word
2) He assumes sola scriptura. He's saying (without backing it up) that Scripture is not written Tradition because Tradition is not inspired. A very unconvincing
apologetic.
The Bible contains all essential revelation.
It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:
John's point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. John 21:25
I half agree with James. While this verse does not disprove sola scriptura, it does open up the POSSIBILITY of extra-scriptural Tradition (because if Jesus did some things that weren't written down, He might also have taught some things that weren't written down). Personally, I think this is a nice "introduction" verse into the quest for Tradition, even though it doesn't prove anything.
Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:
We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institution such as the Roman Catholic Church-all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.
Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:30-31
Sola John? I doubt it. The focus here is on Jesus' miracles, which John wrote down to give proof that Jesus is the Son of God so that we may have eternal life by believing. He's not talking about any of Jesus' teachings; rather, he's just saying that he wrote down some miracles to help us believe.
The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: "that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Paul says that Scripture is USEFUL for teaching; it is USEFUL so that we may be "proficient, equipped for every good work." If something is merely USEFUL, it is not completely sufficient.
Plus, Timothy's Scriptures consisted of the Old Testament and maybe some of Paul's letters. Had Paul been telling him to believe in sola scriptura at that time, he would've been telling him not to believe in any new Scriptures that were written afterwards.
Plus, the Greek phrase for "all Scripture," "pasa graphe," actually means "every Scripture." So, if Paul were teaching sola scriptura, he would've been saying that EVERY Scripture (basically every book of Scripture) is sufficient, which is absurd.
To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God's Word. Scripture warns us "not to exceed what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6).
"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other." - 1 Corinthians 4:6 (KJV)
Again, if Paul were teaching sola scriptura, he would've been telling the Corinthians to only believe in the Old Testament and MAYBE a few of Paul's letters, denying the inspiration of anything that came afterwards. So, what did Paul mean?
First, we must ask if this verse is in the context of the sufficiency of Scripture; it is not. Paul is telling the Corinthians not to divide into factions based on human leaders (such as Paul and Apollos), which is only one issue; right away we can see that Paul was not teaching sola scriptura. Secondly, we must ask what Paul meant when he referred to "what is written." The most likely interpretation (in my opinion) is the Old Testament. Enough was written in it about the nature of man that the Corinthians should've known not to divide into factions based on human leaders.
"Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).
But the oral teachings of the apostles were God's word (1 Thessalonians 2:13), and if they weren't all written down, then Tradition doesn't add to God's word.
The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19
This passage is talking about adding to the prophecies of the book of Revelation, not to Scripture as a whole. Even if it were referring to the bible as a whole, it would only be referring to the PROPHECIES in Scripture, not all doctrines.
At question is the authority of Tradition, not Scripture.
The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the sufficiency or authority of the Word of God.
The controversy revolves around the identity of God's Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?
Exactly.
In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church's rule of faith. "Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?" they demand.
Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority.
James is dodging the issue. If Scripture doesn't teach sola scriptura, then it's false. So far he hasn't proven that it does, so, unless he comes up with some convincing proof, the Catholic Church is right.
The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.
"If those to whom the word of God came were called "gods" -and the scripture cannot be annulled" - John 10:35
Jesus is not saying that the word of God is confined to Scripture. He's saying that the word of God says a certain thing, and that specific part of the word of God is in Scripture.
The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradition is also the Word of God.
I agree.
The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God?
Paul commands us to obey the written and oral word of God (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and James has not yet shown that this command has ended. He tried to show that all essential revelation was written in Scripture, but none of the passages he used actually support that claim.
Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church's rule of faith?
I already showed that both Scripture and Tradition are the word of God.
In Acts 15, the leaders of the Church came together to discuss whether or not Gentile converts had to be circumcised. They interpreted Scripture (verses 16-17), and their decision was delivered to the Church "for observance" (Acts 16:4).
