WHAT'S YOUR AUTHORITY FOR THAT?

This is a simple little script which you may find helpful. In our efforts to help you defend the True Faith, we always emphasize the point that, when confronted with a sectarian "missionary" who wishes to "convert" you to his error, you should always demand that he first establish his authority for doing so.

We don't mean his personal credentials. We mean the Bible. The missionary (unless he is a Mormon, of course, in which case his authority is the Book of Mormon) will always fall back on the authority of Scripture. "Scripture says this" or "Scripture proves that."

Before turning to the verses he brings up, and thus to the topic he

brings up, demand that he demonstrate first how he can tell that the

Bible IS the rule of faith--and even what constitutes the Bible. Imagine the conversation goes something like this:

"Good afternoon, neighbor. May I share with you a few words of Christian truth?"

"Sure," you say. "Where do you get this truth?"

"From the Bible, of course."

"That's your authority?"

"Yes, it's the only authority for Christians."

"Can you prove that from the Bible?"

"What do you mean?"

"I mean I don't believe the Bible claims itself to be the sole rule of

faith. I mean the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) is itself unbiblical. Please show me where the Bible claims such a status for itself."

At this point any Protestant missionary worth his salt will bring up one of several verses. Perhaps the verse most commonly given is 2 Timothy 3:16. In the King James Version, the verse reads this way: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

It is said that 2 Timothy 3:16 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But it doesn't claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable," that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in leading one to the goal itself.

The other few verses that might be brought up to "prove" the sufficiency of Scripture can be handled the same way.

The thing to keep in mind is that nowhere does the Bible say, "Scripture alone is sufficient," and nowhere does the Bible even imply it. After you have argued that the verses the born-again heretic brings up simply don't prove this point, continue the discussion this way:

"If you look at Scripture for what it is, you'll see it wasn't intended

to be an instructional tool for converts. In fact, not one book of the

Bible was written for non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians.

"The Bible is not a catechism or a theological treatise. Just look at the 27 books of the New Testament. You won't find one that spells out the elements of the faith the way the Catholic catechism does, or even as the ancient creeds do, such as the Nicene Creed. Those books were written to particular audiences for particular purposes.

"Most of the epistles, for example, were written to local churches which were having problems. St. Paul or St. John or another writer would try to solve these problems. There was no attempt to impart basic instruction to non-believers or to summarize everything for believers."

"I don't agree with any of that," replies the born-again. "The New

Testament is the very basis of the Christian faith."

"How can it be, since the Christian faith existed before the New Testament was written? The first book of the New Testament was composed decades after Christ's Ascension, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.

"And that brings up another point. How do you know for sure what list of inspired books constitutes the canon of the New Testament? How do you know these 27 books are inspired and should be gathered together to form the New Testament? How do you rule out other books (which are just as ancient) and say that they are not part of the New Testament?"

"Well, the early Christians agreed on the 27 books," answers the

missionary. "The Holy Spirit led them to this agreement."

"But a study of early Christian history shows considerable disagreement. Who finally decided? Some early Christians said the Book of Revelation (the Apocalypse) didn't belong in the canon. Others said the "Shepherd of Hermas" did belong. How do you handle that?"

"We know by examining their contents. Some books obviously belong. Others obviously don't."

"But is it really so obvious? Tell me, what is so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired? And what is so obviously unorthodox in the "Shepherd" or the "Didache" or the "Letter of Clement"?" If you happen to have the writings of the Fathers, this would be a good time to read from them. The writings are all short, and you can demonstrate that they seem just as orthodox as the New Testament writings themselves. Then read Philemon or some other short book, such as 3 John.

"Tell me, what's in these books that so obviously makes them inspired? If you didn't know that Philemon was written by St. Paul or that 3 John was written by St. John, would you give either a second reading? It's not disrespectful to say they don't have much substance to them, compared to other books of the New Testament. One can imagine the Christian Church surviving well enough without either.

"Neither book claims inspiration for itself. If there is, as a matter of

fact, more solid Christian teaching in these other, non-canonical writings -- if they contain more Christian truths and no religious errors -- then how can you say it's obvious which books are inspired and which aren't?"

Here the born-again will fumble around for awhile, perhaps repeating his earlier statements. Then you swoop in for the kill.

"Look, the fact is this: The only reason you and I have the New Testament is that the canon (or list of approved books) is a product of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As St. Augustine put it, 'I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.' Any Christian who accepts the authority of the New Testament does so, whether he likes to admit it or not, on the say-so of the Catholic Church.

"The question you have to ask yourself, my friend, is this: Where did we get the Bible? Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren't in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture.

"And after you answer that question--and there's only one answer you can give, as an honest inquirer--you have a follow-up question: If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who's to do the interpreting, why are there so many variant

understandings even among evangelicals and fundamentalists?"

"Well, that I can answer easily enough," responds the born-again. "Evangelicals and fundamentalists may disagree on secondary matters, but we all agree on the essentials."

"Is that so? Where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as

essential, and others as secondary? The answer is that we don't find that anywhere in Scripture. Evangelicals and fundamentalists may all agree with one another on the fact of the Resurrection of Our Lord (and we also agree with you on that), but you disagree among yourselves on the necessity of Baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the justifying process?) and whether Christians, once justified, can forfeit salvation--some say it's impossible, some say it's possible only in the case of apostasy, some say it's possible for grave sins. You're all 'Bible Christians,' but which group is right?"

"Well, my group, of course."

"Of course."