Sunday, March 17, 2019

A Rejoinder To Dave Armstrong On Sola Scriptura

  • Discussion:
           -This article serves as a point-by-point refutation of former Protestant turned Roman Catholic convert and apologist Dave Armstrong's work titled A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola ScripturaWe begin this rebuttal with a citation from the author:

           "...no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages."

           The assertion that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical is a standard Roman Catholic objection, and has been dealt with in a succinct fashion here:

           https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/02/biblical-defense-of-sola-scriptura.html

           One must also wonder why so many uniquely Roman Catholic doctrines contradict Scripture.

           "Word in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture."

           This argument does not work because Sola Scriptura does not deny that the Word of God was once communicated orally. All the principle says is that Scripture alone is the final (not only) standard of authority for the Christian church. Scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith or spiritual standard for Christians to use. We should not endorse somebody's ideas just because he or she claims to be a prophet of God (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

           "Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture."

           Tradition that is in perfect harmony with the teaching of Scripture poses absolutely no problem for Sola Scriptura. What needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt is that inspired extra-biblical oral traditions exist.

           Next, Dave goes on to claim that Jesus and the apostles accepted oral tradition (in the same sense that Rome claims to possess inspired tradition). The Roman Catholic author cites four examples of what he considers as proof which are addressed as follows:

           "The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture."

           The above claim has been soundly refuted by the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online: 

           "In the manuscripts of the New Testament, the name occurs in a great orthographical variety, such as Nazaret, Nazareth, Nazara, Nazarat, and the like. In the time of Eusebius and St. Jerome (Onomasticon), its name was Nazara (in modern Arabic, en Nasirah), which therefore, seems to be the correct name; in the New Testament we find its derivatives written Nazarenos, or Nazoraios, but never Nazaretaios. The etymology of Nazara is neser, which means "a shoot". The Vulgate renders this word by flos, "flower", in the Prophecy of Isaias (11:1), which is applied to the Saviour. St. Jerome (Epist., xlvi, "Ad Marcellam") gives the same interpretation to the name of the town."

           So, Dave Armstrong's argument here is with an official Roman Catholic source, not with me or any other proponent of Sola Scriptura.

           "In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down."

            Attempting to prove the Papal office from Matthew 23 is plagued with problems. There was no Papal office in Israel. When Jesus referred to the seat of Moses, He was simply referring to a position of authority, one that belonged to several people, not one person who was taken as supreme over them: "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated THEMSELVES in the chair of Moses..." See this article for more details:

           https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-roman-catholic-misuse-of-moses-seat.html

           Additionally, this footnote from the Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition says the following regarding the seat of Moses:

            "[2-3] Have taken their seat . . . Moses: it is uncertain whether this is simply a metaphor for Mosaic teaching authority or refers to an actual chair on which the teacher sat. It has been proved that there was a seat so designated in synagogues of a later period than that of this gospel."

           "In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does."

           It is certainly true that the Apostolic writers appealed to extra-biblical sources. However, all this proves is that extra-biblical sources sometimes contained statements that the Apostles deemed useful in articulating their points.

           "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament."

           Could it be that the Holy Spirit simply moved Paul to incorporate the two names into his inspired epistle? Sola Scriptura does not deny that other books or things are of use. So none of what Dave Armstrong is saying poses a problem.

           "In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians."

           The Council of Jerusalem is actually supportive of Sola Scriptura and harmful to Roman Catholic claims of Papal supremacy. See this article for more details:

           https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-jerusalem-council-and-sola-scriptura.html

           "Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time."

           The standard that corrects the theological errors of the Pharisees and Sadducees is Scripture. That is what Jesus used when confronting the two groups. It is also important to keep in mind that there was no infallible teaching Magisterium for the Jews. Despite the rejection of the resurrection of the dead by the Sadducees, the concept was still clearly attested to in the Old Testament (Job 19:25-26; Psalm 16:10; Daniel 12:2; Isaiah 26:19). Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees upheld corrupt oral traditions.

           If it is true that the Sadducees essentially practiced Sola Scriptura, then how does such a statement not contradict the traditional Roman Catholic historical narrative which says that the ideology was totally unheard of until the Protestant Reformation? One Roman Catholic scholar made this statement:

           “Cyril subscribed to a form of Sola Scriptura doctrine, stating categorically that every doctrinal statement must be based on the Scriptures.” (Edward Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem, [Psychology Press, 2000], p. 56, cited by Keith Thompson)

           "Old Testament Jews did not believe in Sola Scriptura. So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc."

           The reason that the Jews in Babylon had difficulties in interpreting Scripture is that they were most probably unfamiliar with pure Hebrew. After all, they were in captivity for seventy years and learned Aramaic. Nonetheless, some parts of the Bible are harder to understand than others. However, infallibility is not a requirement for accurately interpreting and applying Scripture.

           Should we reject the Papacy, Marian dogmas, and the Eucharist for the reason that such concepts were not believed by the ancient Jews?

            "This passage [2 Timothy 3:16-17] doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14)."

          None of the Bible verses that the author mentions tell us what or where we can get the specific statements of the Apostle Paul. The claim that extra-biblical oral tradition exists in those passages is assumed rather than proved. It other words, the Roman Catholic apologist is guilty of circular reasoning. Could it be that what Timothy had learned came from the Old Testament Scriptures themselves?
         
           "If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

           So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching."

           The author's claims are fallacious, considering how the context of Ephesians 4 does not match that of 2 Timothy 3. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 specifically points us to a rule of faith. Ephesians 4:11-15 is merely discussing unity in Christ Jesus and the diverse gifts of the Holy Spirit. The text from Ephesians pertains to the administration of the principles found within the guide (Scripture), namely brotherly fellowship and edification in the faith. The context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 identifies our spiritual standard of discernment. 2 Timothy 3 discusses the means by which edification in the faith is to be done, Scripture. Thus, the authority of ministers does not extend beyond that authoritative standard. The written revelation equips the faithful man of God for every good work. 2 Timothy mentions no other rule of faith. So this Roman Catholic objection is actually a false analogy.

           Nowhere does the text of Ephesians 4:11-15 mention anything about an extra-biblical authority exercising the same weight of authority as Scripture itself. It nowhere even hints at the establishment of an elitist church hierarchy, nor denies that Scripture is the ultimate spiritual standard of authority in the church. Nowhere does the New Testament mention the office of pope. Both passages in question compliment each other. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not deny the role of godly church leaders, but they are subject to the supreme authority of Scripture. Nowhere does Scripture tell us that the church is God-breathed.

           The author argues that Sola Scriptura is a circular position, which has been already been addressed here:

           https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/02/is-sola-scriptura-based-on-circular.html

           "This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, “Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t.” The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter."

           This comparison is highly deceptive because the constitution and the appointed judges who provide interpretations for lawmakers are fallible (whereas the pope claims to have been bestowed a charisma of infallibility in proclaiming dogmas). Secondly, it is merely assumed by Catholics that the church must be governed by an earthly head. That idea cannot even be found in the New Testament. Moreover, God is perfectly capable of revealing His truth to children or even the uneducated. Human leaders can become corrupt (1 Samuel 8; 2 Kings 22:8-13). Unity is meaningless apart from truth. What we should be striving for is unity according to Scripture. God given revelation is the final appeal that should settle doctrinal disputes.

           How can we determine whether or not a particular doctrine is a fundamental article of the Christian faith? First of all, our doctrine must be based on Scripture. All fundamental doctrines of the faith are directly related to salvation, sin, and the Godhead. At the same time, there are issues that are more peripheral in nature to which Paul would humbly say, "Let every man be convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:1-6). Nonetheless, a common debate tactic of Roman Catholic apologists is to attack the integrity of Scripture. Why is that so? The reason is that they have been taught to defend "Mother Church" at all costs.

1 comment:

  1. Catholic appeal to "tradition" is ironic, because they only appeal to CATHOLIC traditions and traditions made up by men of that organization. But what did the Bible mean when it spoke of "traditions" and what did the early Christians mean? This post answers these questions (hint -- they did not mean what Rome means!)
    https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2017/05/rome-and-tradition.html

    ReplyDelete