Featured Sola Scriptura: The Sufficiency of Scripture

i of v to Martin

Martin,

I have two responses for you. You may choose the first, which is brief... or you may choose the second, which is longer. Either way thanks for your continued engagement!
Herbert
Response #1
"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

Response #2

You've suggested that I try to be more concise. Please bear a few things in mind:

• It needn't be almost impossible to discuss things with me because you're free to ignore or discuss anything you'd like. You needn't feel obligated to respond to everything I write.
• My most lengthy responses here are nearly all presented in response to the myriad criticisms that you, DHK, and others have presented. Again, you and others suggest that I am not a follower of Christ, that I don't understand the Scriptures, that I've accepted a false gospel, that I follow an idolatrous, blasphemous, disobedient, Godless, institution of men... Therefore, I attempt to be thorough in my responses.
• "Prolixity" is about being tedious and unneccessarily wordy. When dealing with these matters, matters which relate to the question of salvation, I think details matter all the more. So it's hard work to wrestle with these topics. It's easy, though, to hand-wave our way through the centuries, mischaracterizing the Fathers of the Church, mischaracterizing the impact of Constantine upon Christianity, and otherwise hop, skip, and jump our way into our comfortable little respective "denominations" (to use Calvin's term). Taking the time to really investigate opposing views doesn't work that way, however.
• What is more important, what demands more of our time, than our efforts to know and follow Him? (Psalm 63)
• I try to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you (me) a reason of the hope that is in you (me) with meekness and fear..." even if that answer is lengthy. (1st Peter 3:15)
• A number of the people here have stated quite bluntly that I (and all Catholics, for that matter) am bound for eternal damnation. When dealing with such charges, can a person respond with too much detail? (1st Peter 3:15)
• We are sifting through 2,000 years of Church history and myriad philosophical, linguistic, cultural, historical, and Scriptural considerations. We must be thorough in our consideration of these matters as we strive to "be aware lest any man spoil you (us) through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of men, after the tradition of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8). By the way, notice the fact that the threat here from Colossians doesn't warn us of all tradition, just "the tradition of the world." The importance of that distinction will come up again further down the page.
• Despite all of the talk, nobody here has yet responded to my original question. If someone would do that rather than bring up a whole bunch of other matters, to which I've taken the time to respond, there'd be less response from me for you to sift through. Remember, early on I asked something very straightforward of you and and anyone who'd be happy to respond:

"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

This original request has not yet been spoken to.

However, though I'd like to stay on point here as I await your direct response to my request above, I will address a recent response below:

To respond to my claim that your non sequitur is in fact a non sequitur by asking me whether or not it's a non sequitur doesn't really seem to move the conversation forward. My claim is that your argument, which seems to run something like this:
1. Christ is the Divine Son of God.
2. Christ quoted from and thus affirmed Scripture's authority.
3. Therefore, Scripture is the sole and final authority for Christians.
is a non sequitur because #3 does not logically follow from numbers 1 and 2. My challenge to you is to demonstrate how you get #3 from #s 1 and 2... and writing "Well it's not a non sequitur, is it?" doesn't do that.

i. I know I'm changing some of your words here, but the fact that Christ "specifically condemned 'tradition,' used Scripture... to (further demonstrate the legitimacy of) His arguments, and chided others for not doing so..." once again, is compatible with numbers 1 and 2 above, but in no way entails the truth of #3. Catholics affirm Scripture's authority unquestioningly. We just don't accept the philosophical tradition, nowhere revealed by God, which states anything like "Sola Scriptura."

ii. Condemning certain "traditions" and condemning "all tradition" are two very different things. Christ did the former, not the latter. My position is that you're unjustified in dismissing "all" tradition simply because Christ condemned some tradition (namely, the really bad traditions which were followed by the Pharisees and others). This represents, by the way, another non sequitur. The idea that "all" traditions are to be condemned does not follow from the fact that Christ condemned the unGodly traditions held to by certain people of His day.

iii. Christ didn't use "Scripture exclusively to prove His arguments." He wasthe "argument." He spoke with the "Authoritative I," saying things such as "You've heard it said... But I tell you." Further, in such passages, far from affirming the meanings and interpretations people had come to accept with regard to such verses, He clarified not specifically what the words said, but what they were *intended* to mean (by the Holy Spirit) for the follower of God. In other words we can't attribute the potency of what He did or said exclusively according to the particular nature or content of what He was doing or saying at a given moment. We must evaluate everything He said and did in light of the fact that He is the Lord God Incarnate. So to attribute the "proof" of His "arguments" strictly or exclusively to Scripture (and thereby distinguish their demonstration from His Person as you did), is a Scripturally unjustified move on your part.

 

ii of v to Martin

iv. You said "Christ, in His earthly ministry, specifically condemned 'tradition,' used Scripture exclusively to prove His arguments, and chided others for not doing so." I think it's worth noting that this statement reveals something quite interesting. For within it is buried your implicit acknowledgement of both the action and role of Scripture as well as Tradition. For "Sacred Tradition," in a certain way, could be described as the "right perspective" or "right position" or "authentic teaching" concerning a given moral topic. The right "tradition," then, is the very thing Christ would be "arguing" for. And He appealed to Scripture to support His tradition, if you will, and not Scripture alone. So there are, found in your statement, two distinct notions. One of them represents the authority of the Scriptures to which Christ appealed. The other is the "argument" or the "right understanding" of a given topic, which He was presenting in contrast to the "wrong understanding" or man-made tradition held to by the Pharisees or whomever it was who were supplanting the things of God with the corrupt teachings of men. In other words, you said that Christ "used Scripture to prove His arguments." Your phrasing reveals the fact that arguments, which are acknowledged by men, are themselves distinct from, yet bound to Scripture by virtue of the fact that both avenues of revelation are, when rightly presented, done so according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So it was that Christ could "use" Scripture to "prove" His arguments. In other words, Scripture itself was, again, distinct from the argument He was making. Though they were interdependent of one another, His arguments were themselves distinct from those Scriptures to which He appealed in support of them. Add to that His identity and we have a trio of forces which produce for us the infallible teaching of God. This is part of the reason why Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the stewardly Teaching Authority of the Magisterium act as they do and are rightly seen as being in utter harmony with each other according to God's guidance. Again, from the Second Vatican Council:

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence." (Dei Verbum)

v. Let me ask the question this way: Are "arguments" and the "Scripture" one and the same thing? You said yourself that Christ used Scripture "exclusively" to prove His arguments. But if His arguments themselves weren't Scripture, then He wasn't using Scripture "exclusively." He would have been, in that case, using Arguments + Scripture and not Scripture "exclusively" as you said. So again, which one is it? And where does the important distinction between you being a man (who's not an apostle and is thereby capable of error) and Christ being God Himself (and not capable of error) come into play here?

Martin, guessing at my responses while simultaneously missing my point and thus formulating responses which are themselves off-point further complicates things. Further, that's not how I'd respond to the claim that Christ's life and witness compel us to follow Him. For I do indeed follow Christ and wish that, like you and me, all people would follow Christ with us. Amen.

 

iii of v

Neither of those are questions I'm asking. To the first, I'd answer "Yes." As for the second, well, I wouldn't even ask it. For I don't believe we should "despise" anything He did. I don't despise His example. By attributing to me a loathing for Christ's example that I haven't expressed, you're, in a sense, due to the nature of that remark, presenting a sort of ad hominem attack. For what is more insulting to a Christian than suggesting that he "despises" the example left by his Savior or attributing to him a loathing of His Savior's witness? More specifically, though, it's a strawman. For nothing I have said suggests that I despise Christ's example. So you're attacking a position ("We should despise the example Christ left to us") which I never presented and which doesn't follow from any premises I've offered (Which, by the way, suggests that you came to it by way of another non sequitur).

What I don't accept (yet still don't "despise") are any philosophical or interpretive traditions hich are not revealed by God but which are, by men, insisted upon as legitimately revealed by God. Especially troubling are doctrines with no precedence prior to the 16th Century (and which could not, therefore, have been handed down to us from the Apostles), and which were not revealed by God, an angel, a prophet, or Scripture itself. And rather than just saying "You're wrong, Martin." I am trying to talk it over in all its detail. Further, if you're suggesting that I don't believe that Christians should, like Christ, quote Scripture, you're once again going after a straw man.

1- Apart from having presented another non sequitur, again, you're still failing to speak to the actual point that I've raised. In other words, you blew right past that non sequitur and, building upon its cracked foundation, you're moving on to more straw men.

2- For the record, notice that St. Paul isn't saying anything like "Follow Scripture alone." If he had intended such a thing, it's likely that he'd have written the notion down somewhere. But even 2nd Timothy, to which you turn as the "locus classicus" of Sola Scriptura, doesn't present such an idea. Even there you're mistaken in reading his text in such a way as to conclude that he had anything like Sola Scriptura in mind. If St. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were inclined to, it seems they could have just come right out with a clear teaching of the doctrine. For that matter, why isn't there a record of Christ clearly teaching such a doctrine? Further, why aren't Christians prior to the 16th Century found preaching "sola" Scriptura. They certainly preach the authority of Scripture. But they don't preach the "sola" to which you, by appeal to an egregious non sequitur, insist all Christians be bound. And for St. Paul's part, he's saying "Imitate me" or, as you put it "Follow my example." That is, no matter how you slice it, definitely NOT Sola Scriptura.

3- In an effort to undermine or disprove the authority of Apostolic Tradition, you're appealing to a man who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said the following: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." (2nd Thessalonians 2:15) and "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." (1st Corinthians 11:2) Again, though you claim to hold to Sola Scriptura, you're holding to, instead, your fallible interpretations of Scripture.

4- You hop, skip, and jump your way from entirely Scriptural ideas which, for example, suggest that we should follow Christ's example, to completely unScriptural ideas such as: "Therefore we shall eschew and traditions that we cannot substantiate from the Bible and base all our practices, as far as possible, from the word of God." For the Bible says nothing like that. What that statement represents is an inference, arrived at by means of the entirely fallible operation of the human mind. And, once again, it is another non sequitur. The fact that Pharisees, for example, held to unGodly traditions does not inexorably lead us to conclude that all traditions, even those safeguarded within the Christian Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be maintained in harmony with their original deposit, for the sake of the very public, visible witness for which Christ prayed in His last hours. (John 17:20-23)

5- You suggest that the witness of Jesus attests to Sola Scriptura. I beg to differ. When he most intentionally and purposefully commissioned His very Disciples, He didn't say a word about the writing of Scripture. And at that great moment of commissioning, the Scriptures record the following: "Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20) Yes, He instituted a church whose members would comprise His very body on Earth in His absence (leading Him to later refer to His followers as His very self, when He said: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?") in a profound and miraculous witness to the grace of God, which is now shed abroad in our hearts (Romans 5:5).And for all that the Scriptures are to us and even despite the great power and authority they represent in the Church He founded, He doesn't even mention Scripture here. We must, therefore, let Scripture dictate the terms according to which we understand Scripture and not insist that they occupy a position in the individual Christian's life which they never claim for themselves.

No. I don't believe you have shed light on this matter. At best you've presented an argument by repetition which is itself a non sequitur.

The above comments are largely subjective in nature. They demonstrate nothing but the fact that you believe what I already know you to believe. Further, I am not arguing against the reality that He is indeed your Lord and Saviour. I consider you a Christian, a brother in the faith, a fellow heir to God's gracious gift of His Son. Further, though, as far as making a valid point goes, you're presenting an "argument by assertion." I can do the same thing by sharing my "demonstration" in the same way. Further, your remarks beg the question by presupposing the truth of your position (concerning those matters which divide us) over and above mine. Also, since I am not saying that we shouldn't follow Him, they entirely mischaracterize my position and in that way represent another strawman. After all, I agree that "we do not need any justification for obeying Him or in following His example."

 

iv of v

As I attempt to explain my position to you, I am by no means attempting to justify some sort of wrongdoing on my part. Here you're telling me what I'm doing, rather than asking me how it is I see myself operating. What you're doing though is claiming to know that I am "willing" to disregard, in a grand act of disobedience, the wishes of Christ for me, His creature. These remarks are directed at me, my personal lack of integrity, and my personal moral shortcomings. To the extent they're criticisms of me, rather than explanations as to why my positions are wrong, they represent ad hominem attacks. After all, to charge someone with disobedience is to credit him with knowledge of his wrongdoing. If you just said I was ignorant, you might at least imagine me as meaning well. As it is, you've described me as one who knows he is wrong yet won't admit it and who, even more, goes to great lengths to defend his misbehavior.

Further, to charge me with sophistry is to suggest that I am *willfully* attempting to deceive you and others. To the degree that you intend to ascribe to me ill will towards you and others, this charge represents another ad hominem attack. Also, to charge me with sophistry is to indicate that you believe me to be deliberately employing fallacious argumentation to make my point. The best way for you to respond to such a thing would, I suggest, be to demonstrate the invalidity of a particular point I'm making rather than criticizing my person. Instead of doing that, though, you're talking past my actual points and speaking negatively of me, the person who's saying them. And as I said, the vast majority of what I've said here has been written *in response* to things that I never even brought up. What I'd like to discuss, again, is the following:

"...I'd ask you to demonstrate how it is that you see the fact that Christ quotes Scripture and that the Writer of Hebrews quotes Scripture as somehow revealing to us that we are justified in holding to Sola Scriptura."

When two people agree upon the power and authority of Scripture but differ as to how the Scripture is to be understood (which is a disagreement that originates in the minds of men and not on the pages of Scripture), the way to solve the problem isn't for one to quote Scripture in an act which demonstrates the very point which divides them. It's not Scripture, after all, that I don't agree with. I agree with every word of Scripture. Specifically what I don't agree with is your particular appointment of Scripture to a status it never claims for itself. You put it on a shelf "all alone." But it doesn't place itself alone on that shelf. That's something you did, and fallibly so, according to a sweeping and profound inference which, apart from dismissing a host of Biblical truths, invalidates itself on account of the fact that the very text by which you claim to operate doesn't instruct you to operate in this manner. For that placement of Scripture on your part, which you insist is legitimate and justified, represents an act of the fallible mind's processing of questions concerning linguistics, culture, history, etc. So I am asking you to demonstrate how it is that you justify your first and most fundamental error, an error with far-reaching effects:

How do you justify transitioning from an acknowledgement of Scripture's authority, to an insistence upon Scripture's sole authority?

And ultimately, to suggest that it is I who fail to "rightly divide the word of truth" and you who "gets it" is to appeal to an argument which begs the question (by presuming the very thing in question between us) and even to hint at a certain Biblicist Gnosticism which indicates the presence of some sort of secret knowledge that I just don't get... but you do. Instead of doing this, why don't you just let the light shine on the matter and share with me how it is that Christ's practical affirmation of Scriptural authority justifies adherence to the doctrine of *Sola* Scriptura? If you'd do that, and simply stick to that question (or effectively argue that I'm asking a moot point, or something) this conversation could proceed.

What, exactly, and please quote me, did I say which led you to conclude that I believe that the Holy Spirit was given to us "as a substitute for hard work in studying and interpreting the Scriptures"? You're compounding straw men here by arguing against points I never made which, if anything, reveal that you're quick to draw conclusions which don't follow from their given premises (i.e., non sequiturs).

By attempting to apply these standards to the Catholic Faith, I am afraid you'll prove too much and find yourself quite hard pressed to argue for the essential integrity of any Christian group. For the Church has never compromised its teaching to match the conduct of its members. And going back in history, even those who settled on the Trinity itself during a very trying time, are known to have been caught up in the most acrimonious of conflicts. And though I don't condone or support the killing of a single person who refused to recant a position which was determined to be heretical, the predominant historical view throughout most of Christian history was one which is far more complex than you imply for at least three reasons: