Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

 

Closing Statement

 

Moses Flores

 

            First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Ben Rosado for, thus far, having such an excellent debate.  I would like to thank him for being the gentleman that he is and I’m glad to say that I’m looking forward to further discussion on the Papacy with him.  I would like to thank any readers who have made it this far with the dialogue and for your investment in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, our great God and Savior.  I hope that these have been a blessing to you.

 

            So with all that has been said and exchanged about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura what is at stake?  What is the issue?  The issue is the Gospel.  Who has the right to define the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Paul warns us in Galatians 1:6-9 that there is such a thing as a “different gospel” – he means a distorted one – and that we should be on our guard for such a “gospel”.  How do we know what the “gospel” was that was given once for all to the saints (Jude 3)?  How can I know that?  How can anybody know that?

            According to Dogmatic Roman Catholic teaching, the tradition of the Church is the only means that can properly interpret the Scriptures so that without these traditions the Scriptures cannot be misunderstood (see the CCC 76-86, Council of Trent 4^th Session, Vatican I).  Also, according to Dogmatic Roman Catholic teaching, the only possessors of the Tradition are the successors of the Apostles, who are the Bishops, and especially the successor of Peter, the Pope.  Accordingly, this “tradition” is defined as the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” of which Scripture is NEVER to be interpreted against this unanimity. 

            What does this mean for the Gospel?  Essentially this means that the Gospel is to be defined, not according to Scripture alone, but according to Scripture and Tradition.  This “tradition” – because it is oral – is not visible like the Scriptures are.  Rather it has been orally transmitted from Bishop to Bishop since the time of the apostles and should be contained within the Fathers.  Hence, when one asks a Roman Catholic, “what must I do to be saved?” the answer must come in this form:  “Well you must believe in Jesus Christ, you must believe in the Papacy, you must believe in the infallibility of the Pope, you must believe in the perpetual virginity and the bodily assumption of Mary, you must believe that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, you must believe in the canon of Scripture as defined by Trent, etc…all these beliefs are dogmatic and, if rejected carry with them the anathema of the Roman Catholic Church.  You must also do works that will merit for  yourself righteousness and live a life of satispassio to atone for your temporal consequences of your sins on earth or may do away with them in purgatory.” 

            Yet when the apostle Paul was asked the same question by the Philippian jailer he responded by saying “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).  Is there a difference?  There certainly is!  In one I am asked to have faith alone in the person and work of Christ while in the other one I am asked to believe many other doctrines that were added as necessary for salvation as well as to work for my own merit from God.  I don’t want to turn this discussion to justification as I’m sure it will be dealt with in time, but only want to point out the substantial difference.

            Now, the warnings of Paul ring true to be cautious to avoid any “other gospel” that would actually cause one to miss Christ completely.  The Galatians fell into such an error.  According to Paul, their “adding circumcision” to faith alone in Christ alone was so serious that Paul says that they were “deserting Him who called [them] in the grace of Christ” (Gal. 1:6, ESV).  How would a Roman Catholic know that they have fallen into error?  How could a system which claims to have an infallible interpreter of Scripture ever be checked for error?  Theoretically, it cannot.  Theoretically, Rome is above any outside inspection for error and even from within for once she has declared something infallible according to her tradition she can never be wrong in it. 

            How do you know that the traditions were not altered in any way as they were orally transmitted?  How do you know that the Scriptures that have been infallibly interpreted correctly?  The only thing one can fall back on here is “because Rome says so.”  Essentially, then, what one must do before they can have faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is to have faith in the Roman Catholic Church that all that she says that is infallible is infallible.

            But lest one thinks that they can find any “infallible” or “apodictic” certainty with Rome because of her claimed infallibility must remember that their choice to believe in the infallibility of Rome is a fallible one.   That is, each person must make a fallible choice to believe in something as infallible.  An act of fallible faith is required here.

           

            I have asserted that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a statement about the nature, authority and sufficiency of Scripture.  It is a doctrine asserting that Scripture really is revelation from God.  That is, that it is an “unveiling” a “pulling back the curtain” to show us what could otherwise have not have been known.  It is a statement about the sovereignty of God to communicate truth with clarity and authority to His covenant creatures. 

            It was asserted that this doctrine is not correct because Scripture has been interpreted in many different ways.  My friends, this has been true of Protestant and Catholic alike.  I can recall Popes like Galasius and Honorius, and Zosimus who fell into errors that are anathematized by Rome.  But does one’s interpretation of Scripture change what Scripture says about itself?  Does that mean that the fault is with Scripture or could the fault be in my understanding?  According to Scripture, the “twisting” of Scripture is caused by the condition of one’s heart and lack of knowledge (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16).  Interestingly enough, Peter admits that there are some things that are “hard to understand”. 

            Are there some doctrines in Scripture that are hard to understand?  Certainly!  Even a cursory introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity is difficult to understand how God can be one in substance yet three in person.  Understanding the mystery of election and predestination is also a difficult doctrine yet the Bible teaches it.  Are we encouraged to seek help in infallibly understanding God’s word?  If we are, the Scriptures only ask us to study (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15).  In the end, our surety of understanding comes from God, who alone is infallible, through the Holy Spirit in us (cf. 1 John 2:20, 27). 

            It was asserted that there are “10,000” denominations in Protestantism.  I reject this as a gross misrepresentation.  At the most, among those considered Protestant, are denominations such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican (Episcopalian), Lutheran, Pentecostal the mainline.  All these agree in their statements about salvation that it is through faith alone in Jesus Christ.  All these agree in their statements that the Bible alone is the authorative word of God for doctrine and life.  The differences that divide these are not based on how to be saved.  Some of them are even based on Church polity.  But this critique is not valid for within Rome there are also “denominations”.  For instance, Mr. Rosado has classified himself as a “charismatic Catholic”.  Is this the kind of Catholicism that is taught in the Vatican?  Hardly!  In the area that I live in near Mexico, the Catholicism down here is best described as “Christ-Pagan” Catholicism; a part of Rome, but again, not the Catholicism taught from the Vatican.  There are even “evangelical Catholics” (defined by David Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia as one who believe in a personal conversion experience, a reliance upon the Bible alone, emphasizes evangelism and holds to a conservative theology).  There are “Spiritist Catholics”; Liberal Catholics, Moderate Catholics, Conservative Catholics, Tradtionalist Roman Catholics, Sedevacanist Roman Catholics (these believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant.  Ukranian Catholic, Irish Catholic.  Each of these is a distinct “group” or “denomination” (as the term is used properly) within Catholicism.  Which one is right?  If Mr. Rosado is consistent with his argument against Sola Scriptura because of the “apparent fractures” in Protestantism, he should be equally consistent and reject the “infallible interpreter” model he proposes for Rome is also segmented, if not more so than Protestantism!

           

In Matthew 15:1-9 (cf. Mark 7:5-13) Jesus deals with the Pharisees and issues concerning the transgression of some traditions.  Here, he explicitly rejected what was not found in the Scriptures that the Pharisees required in order to approach God as “the commandments of men.”  We should note that Jesus made the distinction between the “commandments of men” – which were not found in Scripture – and the “commandments of God” – which were found in Scripture.  Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees were in error for holding men and women accountable to those things which were not from the Scriptures.  Furthermore, he tells them that they have “made the commandment of God of no effect” by their traditions. 

            The parallel to Rome’s view of tradition and their addition of requirements for salvation are many.  It is even the case that Rome ignores and “nullifies” the plain teachings of Scripture in order to uphold their traditions such as Papal Infallibility and the Marian doctrines.  Jesus was quick to judge this supposed “divine tradition” in the light of the ultimate authority of God’s Word found in the Scriptures written by Moses.  We too must be willing to subject any and all teachings and traditions to the Word of God.  Sometimes, however, an objection is raised that this is referring to “human traditions” and not “divine traditions.”  However, it is clear that any tradition, no matter what its claimed origin is, must be tested by the standard of Holy Scripture.

            Clearly, Jesus did not have a favorable view of traditions invented by men.  John Calvin, a Protestant Reformer himself, summed up the basic teachings of this text in his commentary.  He said:

 

“This passage teaches us, first, that all modes of worship invented by men are displeasing to god, because He chooses that he alone shall be heard, in order to train and instruct us in true godliness according to his own pleasure; secondly, that those who are not satisfied with the only law of God, and weary themselves by attending to the traditions of men are uselessly employed;  thirdly, that an outrage is committed against God, when the inventions of men are so highly extolled, that the majesty of His law is almost lowered, or at least the reverence for it is abated[1].”

 

            My friends, Sola Scriptura is not a “novel doctrine”.  It is borne from the very word of God itself.  We see it hinted in the way our Savior used the Scriptures to establish His own teaching.  We see it from the very words of the apostles in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and 2 Peter 1:19-21, among other places.  Again, I mention that these have yet to be refuted or even engaged with in any way.  I have quoted from several church fathers, and I wish I could quote many more at length about how they used the word “tradition” in their writings and how they viewed Scripture as sufficient – materially and formally –  for doctrine.

            Sola Scriptura is Biblical.  Sola Scriptura is simply a redundant way of saying that the Word of God really is the Word of God in nature, in authority and sufficient to all things in which is speaks.  God bless.  Amen.