Belgic Confession, Article V: The Authority of Scripture
We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them – not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.
For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen. (BC, Article V)
The authority of Scripture is one of those things about which a lot of people talk, but few people live. Many churches have articles in their respective statements of faith in which they pay some homage to the authority of Scripture, but in reality they hardly ever even preach from the Bible – the supposed authority from which their beliefs reside. Instead of preaching expositionally through the Scriptures and making application after careful exegesis, the Bible is used to prop up the latest ‘culturally relevant’ sermon which was born from the pastor’s latest movie watched or book read.
On the other hand, there are those who believe so strongly in Biblical authority that they try to make the Bible ‘speak’ on subjects to which the Bible never intended to speak. Consider, for example, the strong pietistic bent of many fundamentalist churches that create ‘rules’ for holy living that aren’t in the Bible (I’m sure there are still people who believe that Jesus turned water into grape juice in John 2). Whether Biblical authority is something that is paid lip service to or something that is over abused, we need to come to a proper understanding of Biblical authority.
If you’ve been following the articles on the Belgic Confession, you will know that we’ve been discussing the Scriptures lately; articles II through VII deal in some way with the Scriptures. The authors of the Confession are making a systematic argument for the Scriptures. Beginning in article II, we see that God has revealed himself both in nature (general revelation) and in Scripture (special revelation). Article III goes into more depth regarding special revelation to discuss the “how” of special revelation. Article IV (our last look at the Confession) talked about the “what” of special revelation (what books constitute divine revelation). Today, in discussing Article V of the Belgic Confession, we’re going to look at the question “where” — as in from “where” do the Scriptures derive their dignity and authority?
The question of authority is a very important one in all manners of life, but most importantly in Christian living. Taking an example ripped from our most recent headlines, we are dealing with the issue of authority in the federal government here in the United States. Our current president, Barrack Obama, is by all accounts attempting to consolidate power within the executive branch of the federal government. Whether by executive order (through the appointing of the various ‘Czars’) or through legislative decree (‘Cap and Trade,’ ‘Universal Health Care’), the president is implementing a socialist agenda in this country that over reaches his constitutionally appointed authority as president. This can only be accomplished if one redefines or ignores the Constitution of the United States. That foundational document sets the boundaries and limits of the federal government by establishing checks and balances and vesting power in the three branches of government; thereby protecting against the tendency to abuse power were it consolidated in any one of the branches.
Similarly, the Bible the foundational document in the Christian church. It provides the divine rule for faith and practice and forms the basis for our doctrine and ethics. As such, it is the only authority in the Christian church. Let’s look more closely at Article V of the Belgic Confession.
Article V begins with the following phrase: “We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.” The first thing to note on the subject of authority is that the Confession states we receive “all these books only as holy and canonical.” What is being asserted here is that only the canonical books of the Bible (see Article IV) are received as authoritative. In other words, only the 66 books of the Bible can stand as God’s divine word and can serve as our guide to doctrine and ethics. It is these books, and these books only, to which we must conform our Christian living. While other books can be useful in helping us in our Christian living, they can make no demands on us outside of what Scripture already demands. Books by other Christian authors can certainly be edifying and give us instruction in Christian doctrine and ethics, but only Scripture serves as the final authority on these matters. Everything must be tested against Scripture and on that basis either be accepted or rejected. This goes to the heart of the issue over the Apocrypha (Hebrew books of the inter-testamental period whose authority is disputed). This issue will be dealt with more fully when we consider Article VI of the Confession.
The second thing to note regarding the authority of Scripture is where the Confession states that the Scriptures are “for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.” The primary purpose of Scripture is to serve as the basis for our faith — doctrine and ethics. As the Apostle Paul states in his second letter to Timothy, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). What is of special import is that last part of the passage. Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training. The result is that the man of God will be “competent, equipped for every good work.” The Scriptures give us everything we need to know in order to live this thing called the Christian life. Some want to assert that the Scriptures speak to all areas of life. I don’t necessarily want to refute this belief, but we need to know that the purpose of the Scriptures isn’t to speak to all areas of life. The Bible is not a practical ‘how-to’ guide for living. It is not the “user’s manual” for life. It is not a history of the world book or a science textbook. Everything the Bible speaks on it speaks truly, but it doesn’t not speak on every subject of interest. The Bible is a story of redemption, and when it does speak, it speaks redemptively. It’s a story of paradise, paradise lost and paradise regained with God as the ‘hero’ of the story and how we can move from paradise lost to paradise regained. Can the Bible be applied to all areas of life? It probably can, but not at the expense of losing the main thrust of the story.
The next point made by Article V of the Confession discusses the source of Scripture’s authority: And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them – not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God. The age old question regarding the authority of Scripture is: Does the church determine what is or isn’t Scripture, or does the church simply recognize what is or isn’t Scripture? What the Confession is putting forth is that the Bible receives its authority from God alone, not from church councils. Christians are to accept the authoritative teachings of the Bible, not because the church decrees it to be so, but because the Holy Spirit testifies as much. Much can be said about this, but the bottom line is that the internal witness of the Holy Spirit is the main determining factor in regards to the authority of Scripture. This is not to say that it is only by the witness of the Holy Spirit that we can accept and recognize Scripture’s authority, but it is the deciding factor.
Historically, there have been four main criteria used to recognize and canonize Scripture:
- Apostolic Origin (Scripture must have been written by an apostle or a close associate)
- Universal Acceptance (Acknowledged by all, or nearly all, Christian communities)
- Liturgical Use (Read publicly during Christian worship)
- Consistent Message (Consistent in message and theology with other accepted Christian writings)
The point being none of these are, whether taken together or individually, enough to quell all doubts. The internal witness of the Holy Spirit is the trump card; he quickens our hearts to hear and accept what Scripture says. This is what Paul meant when he said, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). Spiritual discernment requires not only a regenerated spirit within, but also the indwelling Holy Spirit.
The last clause of Article V states: For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen. Because the Bible is the very spoken word of God as attested to by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, it has predictive power. The very first prophecy recorded in Scripture is Genesis 3:15 — called the Proto-evangellium. In it, God promises that the “seed of the woman” would come and crush the head of the serpent, while in turn having his heel crushed in the process. This is the first promise of the coming redeemer and was fulfilled at the cross of Christ. Other OT prophecies point forward to the coming Messiah-Redeemer. In addition to this, many NT passages foretell the return of Messiah to close the end of the age. The point being that just as the things prophesied about the first coming of Messiah came true, so also the prophecies concerning his return will also be fulfilled. Therefore, the Bible is not only authoritative in its teachings on doctrine and ethics, but also in its teleology as well.
The Scriptures are the divinely inspired, authoritative writings which govern the faith and practice of God’s people. They derive their authority not from church councils, but from God himself — with the Holy Spirit bearing witness within our hearts. As such, we should endeavor to diligently study the Scriptures — both corporately and individually — in order to determine its rule for our lives. Let us not simply pay lip service to the concept of Biblical authority while ignoring its commands and exhortations. Neither let us speak where the Bible remains silent! In our next look at the Belgic Confession, we will discuss in more detail the differences between the canonical books and the apocryphal books. Until then…
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
With regard to canonical disputes, I believe you’re highlighting a straw man here. I’m not aware of any church that believes they, apart from God, give the Scriptures their authority. The canonical disagreement centers not on who is the author of the canon, but rather which canon is in sync with God’s canon. And on this it may be argued that advocates of both popular canons today claim the same reasoning… that the Holy Spirit has guided their church in recognizing which Scriptures are of divine inspiration.
Catholics argue that their canon was recognized by the Church that Christ founded, through the Christ’s promise that His Church would be protected from error, as guided by the Holy Spirit. And further that their OT canon (where the dispute arises), was the canon of choice by Christ and His apostles.
While Protestants argue that the Church had gotten the NT correct, but the OT wrong. That the accepted canon for over a thousand years was in need of revision. As such they took the canon from the Masoretic text, as decided by the Jews themselves sometime in the few centuries following Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection. Sure, these Jews were of the same lineage that rejected their Messiah. And sure, several of the disputed texts were rejected by the Jews due to their Messianic prophesies linked to Christ. But God can certainly use unorthodox people to deliver orthodox declarations. Right?
But I’m confident you’ll expound on more of the context of canonization in the upcoming discussion on Article VI.
What I’m more interested in is the foundation for the claim that the Bible “is the only authority in the Christian church.” Since the Bible does not claim this authority for itself, and instead claims the Church to be the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), how does one biblically end up with this sola scriptura conclusion? Certainly I’m not arguing that the Scriptures and the Church should ever be at odds. The authority of Scripture is sound and valid. But aren’t you arguing extra-biblically (perhaps even contra-biblically) here?
Can you support your argument by sharing evidence that the Church at any time operated under this doctrine? If the Bible does not claim for itself that it is the sole authority, how can you argue from Scripture that this is a biblical and authoritative principle? I estimate that if the Lord intended the Bible to be the sole rule of faith, He wouldn’t have waited 1500 some years to let His Church know.
Ryan,
I think if you read the article more closely, I don’t create a straw man. The Protestant reformers denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha. The Roman Catholic church recognized them as canonical in the various councils of the early church. What I am simply trying to assert is that is you accept the position of the Protestant reformers, then despite the fact that the early church recognized the Apocrypha as Scripture doesn’t make it so; wouldn’t you agree?
Regarding the OT canon recognized by the RCC as the canon that Jesus and his apostles used is certainly up for debate. The 46 books of the OT came into being with the Greek translation of the OT — the Septuagint (or LXX). The extra seven books were not recognized in the official Hebrew Bible. It is almost certain that Jesus, being a Palestinian Jew, would have been raised on the Hebrew Bible, not the LXX, which was used exclusively by the Greek-speaking Jews of the diaspora. Jesus never quotes from the LXX and neither do the apostles. Jerome, who created the Latin Vulgate, originally excluded the Apocrypha until urged by Augustine to include them. Once the Vulgate became the ‘official’ text of the RCC, the Apocrypha too became ‘official’ and infiltrated church tradition until the time of the Reformation.
Regarding your comment on Sola Scriptura, there are many passages which claim the complete sufficiency of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 asserts that it is the SCriptures alone which make a man complete for every good work. One of my favorite passages is Ephesians 2:20 which says that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. So while the church may be the “pillar and foundation of the truth” it is built on the foundation of Biblical authority (I can’t think of any other way to interpret what the foundation of the apostles and prophets could mean than their teaching). Acts records that the church devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching. Jesus declared that heaven and earth would pass away, but his word would remain. He also said that man should live on every word that falls from the mouth of God. Another thing to consider regarding 1 Timothy 3:15, by saying that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, does that mean that the church determines truth, or is it the protector of the truth? I think the we can say that the church has been entrusted with God’s truth, and as such it is the bearer of this truth to the world.
I think your premise that the Bible itself does not claim sole authority is mistaken. Jesus claimed ultimate authority and emphasis on God’s word. Furthermore, he de-emphasized the traditions of men. Paul often claims that Christ is the head of the Church, which to me seems to place Christ (and his word) above the authority of the church. Let’s examine this: What is a better source of truth and authority, the infallible word of God, or fallible men? Let’s also examine the history a bit. Sola Scriptura came up as a response to certain church traditions which ran afoul of the teaching of Scripture. As the church reached the middle ages, tradition along with the magisterium sat alongside SCripture as the church’s authority. The main issue at debate in the Reformation was Sola Scriptura, and as Luther so aptly said, popes and church councils can err, but Scripture remains inerrant. Again, I go back to what makes a better basis for church doctrine, fallible human beings but the infallible word of God?
My apologies, I see where I was unclear. I was responding to your statement here:
My challenge is that neither tradition (Catholic or Protestant) hold that the “church determine[s] what is or isn’t Scripture”. Instead both agree that the Church instead recognizes that which is already divinely inspired Scripture. So the straw man is that there was an alternative philosophy, namely that the Church made the Scriptures inspired, as if they were somehow the source. That is simply not the case.
Look at it this way… the Deuterocanonicals are either inspired or not. One group recognizes they are, and the other that they are not. Both groups claim to have closer ties to the Holy Spirit in their ability to authoritatively discern or recognize their divine or earthly inspiration.
So since both sides are on even footing in terms of their claims to unadulterated Spirit-guided orthodoxy, we need to look at the merits of their authority to make such claims. I’m sure you’ll get into this in your discussion on Article VI, so I won’t try to cover this issue in depth here.
But do let me respond to a few misconceptions I see above about the OT canon…
1) “Jesus, being a Palestinian Jew, would have been raised on the Hebrew Bible, not the LXX.”
This statement is problematic for a couple reasons. First, the Jews did not have a codified canon. The Pharisees generally accepted the Septuagint “canon” (until ~90-100 AD) and the Sadducees limited the “canon” to the Pentateuch. The Jewish dispute amongst themselves didn’t happen until at least 50 years after the Resurrection. Furthermore, the whole purpose of the Septuagint was to make the Scriptures more accessible to the Jews who were speaking more Aramaic, Greek & Latin during the diaspora. I don’t doubt that Hebrew may have been spoken in the Temple, and Jesus, who grew up in a heavy trade area, was likely more than familiar with both the Greek & Hebrew Scriptures. (Incidentally, Jaroslav Pelikan goes into great detail about the development of the Septuagint in Whose Bible is it?. It’s definitely worth a look.)
But my challenge was less on Jesus’ childhood biblical education and more on His position as the Divine Author, the Word of God.
2) “Jesus never quotes from the LXX and neither do the apostles.”
This just couldn’t be further from the truth. The NT authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James and the author of Hebrews, under divine inspiration, primarily quote the Septuagint when referencing OT verses. In fact, depending on who’s math you use, between two-thirds and ninety percent of the 300-350 OT references in the NT are derived directly from the Septuagint.
Now I don’t suggest quotation equals canonicity as some might because there are plenty of non-canonical books quoted in the NT. And even of the proto-canonical OT books, many of them are not quoted at all (Song of Songs, Ecclesiasties, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, etc.). But your assumption is that the LXX was ignored by the NT authors. This is simply not accurate.
In lieu of asking anyone to buy Natalio Fernández Marcos’ signature work, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, here are a few online resources that make the case in detail: John Salza’s list of Septuagint quotes in the NT, and, for a more in depth analysis, R. Grant Jones’ work, Notes on the Septuagint (also available as a handy 75 page pdf).
But my favorite example is Mark 7:6-8 because it’s used so often by Protestants (and I was not an exception), to argue against the “human traditions.” Few realize Jesus was quoting the version of Isaiah that is only found in the Septuagint.
This leads me to another common misconception about the Septuagint canon. Mainly that the NT never references the Deuterocanonicals. Thankfully you haven’t suggested this yet, but it may help to provide references for readers who may still struggle with this misconception. Again, John Salza has a nice list of Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament. But also consider Jimmy Akin’s index of Deuterocanonical References.
3) Jerome ‘knew’ that the LXX was not inspired, but was coerced (perhaps by Augustine) to include it in his Latin translation.
- and –
4) The Vulgate added the Deuterocanonicals, and consequently distorted the true canon.
This is best answered by a Protestant scholar we can all respect, and likely you already have on your bookshelf, J.N.D. Kelly. In his book, Early Christian Doctrines he makes the case abundantly clear that the early Church was unified in their acceptance of the 46 book canon (p.53-54 — Amazon will even let you sneak a peek if you search for “Septuagint”).
The 46 book OT was in unanimous use well before the Vulgate was a twinkle in Jerome’s eye.
Though, citing Jerome is an obvious choice. Of all the Fathers, he does have the most negative view of the Deuterocanonicals. But while Jerome’s doubt may have contributed to some of the Protestant confusion some thousand years later, picking and choosing through history like this reads more like a desperate act to deny the wave of historical evidence otherwise. Jerome himself appears confused as he often quotes from the same Deuterocanonicals as Scripture. (Here’s one of about ten examples, emphasis mine, citing Sirach 13:2 from Epistle 108, To Eustochium, “Does not the scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’”).
But even in this case, it was not Augustine that coerced Jerome to get in line with the rest of the Church, but rather the unanimous testimony from churches as inquired by Pope Damasus in response to Jerome’s report. Jerome himself claims this when he says that “the judgment of the churches” (in Against Rufinus) and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church’s apostolic tradition.
The bottom line, and perhaps I should’ve saved this for your next post on Article VI, is the Reformers decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by the Pharisees 60-100 years after Jesus rose from the dead. These same Pharisees rejected their Messiah, persecuted Christians, and rejected the entire New Testament. It really is no wonder they rejected these Scriptures, however, as they contain some of the most vivid OT messianic prophesies (for example, the description of the condemned Messiah in Wisdom 2). Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church, who had been preaching, teaching and worshiping for at least 60 years should have changed course and aligned themselves with the new OT canon the Pharisees decided on?
Ryan,
Regarding #1: You’re right. The Council of Jamnia was the Jewish council that settled on the shorter OT canon. That says absolutely bupkus about the canonicity of the Apocrypha, though. If anything, pre-90 AD (Council of Jamnia) and pre-Jesus, the accepted writings of Scripture would have certainly been much smaller, not larger. We can fairly safe about the Pentateuch as being divinely inspired and accepted as Scripture. The second category of the OT Scriptures would be the Prophets (with the first one being the Law). As far as I can tell, the Prophets (or Nevi’im), which included Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Book of the Twelve (what we call the minor prophets), were closed and considered ’sacred’ about 200 years before Christ. The only section left in dispute would have been the Writings (or Kethuvim), which would include Ruth, Psalm, Proverbs, and other post-exilic works. Presumably, the Apocrypha would have been included in that bunch, but since the Writings weren’t officially decided upon until Jamnia (AD 90), there is scant evidence that they would have been considered ’sacred’ as the other accepted writing. So it would seem that the apparent lack of an ‘official’ Jewish canon prior to 90 AD militates against your position rather than strengthening it.
Regarding #2. I was in fact mistaken. I did not mean to assert that the NT writers never quoted the LXX. What I meant to say was that they never quoted from the Apocrypha. Before you claim, “a-ha!” I checked out that link you provided of Apocryphal references in the NT. I didn’t check all of them, but I check many of them and none of these references is in the form usually used in the NT when quoting Scripture — e.g., “Scripture says”, “As it is written”, “Have you not read”, etc. Perhaps they are references or allusions, but Paul references pagan poets in a couple of his writings, does that make them Scripture? Jude actually quotes the Book of Enoch, does that make is Scripture? Quoting something or making reference to something doesn’t make it Scripture! Furthermore, those references cited are vague; one could argue correlation rather than causation — in other words, a reference could be made to some concept that was common to Jewish culture as opposed to one work referencing the other.
Regarding #3 & #4: It seems we’re going around in a circle here. The point being that the early church accepted the expanded OT because the LXX included. We haven’t determined that the LXX included because it was considered ’sacred’ or merely ‘useful’. Furthermore, what needs to be established is that the early-early church (The Apostolic Church — i.e., book of Acts) considered the Apocrypha as ’sacred’. I will consent that the early church fathers quoted the Apocrypha, but they were not the inspired authors of the NT; it would be the same if you or I were to quote a non-inspired Christian author in a letter or work.
In response to my brief challenge to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, you offer a few passages in support. I’ll quickly outline the concerns I had when I used to cite the same verses…
2 Tim 3:16-17
You claim this passage “asserts that it is the Scriptures alone which make a man complete for every good work.” To which Scriptures is Paul referring Timothy here (see 2 Tim 3:15)? Are you suggesting that the OT alone is sufficient?
Eph 2:20
Amen, brother! I’ve actually never seen this used to support sola scriptura, but I think I see where you’re going when you say the Church “is built on the foundation of Biblical authority.” Though I’m still not sure how this applies. Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.
Acts 2:42
Amen, amen! Consider this passage along with Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15). You see, very few of the Apostles wrote anything, and Jesus never commanded them to either. Yet the Scriptures are clear that the teachings of the Apostles are authoritative. (see also 2 Tim 1:13-14 and 2 Tim 2:2)
Later you ask, “Another thing to consider regarding 1 Timothy 3:15, by saying that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, does that mean that the church determines truth, or is it the protector of the truth?”
Christians are the Body of Christ, not the Head. But the Church, in which Christ is the Head is certainly the “pillar and foundation of truth.”
And you end in condemning, along with Jesus and Paul (and the Catholic Church), “traditions of man” (Mark 7:6-8; Matt 15:8-9; Col 3:6-8). But this must be understood distinct from Apostolic Tradition protected by the Church (Matt 16:18; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2 Tim 2:2). Before a single page of the NT was written (as recorded in Acts 8-15), we can see the Church functioning in its God-given and Spirit-guided capacity as it makes authoritative decisions.
Let me conclude by rephrasing your final question: “What makes a better basis for our theology: sinful, fallible men each with their own interpretations (2 Pet 1:20) or the Church Christ founded and promised to protect with the Holy Spirit?”
The fruit of the Reformation is spiritual anarchy and its foundational principle, sola scriptura alone has led to more divisions than any other doctrine. How then, does this draw us nearer to fulfilling Christ’s prayer in the garden (John 17:11)…
May I suggest that sola scriptura, a doctrine not taught until the 16th century, not found in Scripture, and the source of endless division is closer to what Christ and Paul preached against as “traditions of man” than faithful Protestants would like to admit.
Ryan,
If you’re looking for a passage of Scripture that actually says, “Scripture Alone,” I can’t give that to you. Neither can I give a passage of Scripture that says, “God exists in Trinity.” The doctrine of the Trinity, ratified at Nicea, is one of the most common attacks against Christianity. What is the usual rejoinder? “While the Bible does not explicitly teach the Trinity, it certainly implies it an awful lot.” Is the doctrine of the Trinity a “tradition of man” or is it divinely revealed? I think we would both argue that it is divinely revealed. I would argue the same with Sola Scriptura.
The thrust of your argument seems to be (correct me if I’m wrong) that the early church functioned primarily on oral tradition prior to the recording of Scripture, and therefore the teachings of Christ and apostles (as passed down to their successors) stands alongside the recorded word as authoritative.
Question: What would have the Apostles’ teaching consisted of? Based on the evidence of Acts and the epistles, it would have consisted of an exposition of the gospel and the implications thereof along with a detailed exposition of the teachings of Christ. That is essentially a summary of the NT. You have the Gospels (basically a detailed exposition of the life and teachings of Christ) and you have the Epistles (the exposition of the gospel and the implications thereof). My question to you is what else do we need aside from Scripture?
Regarding Apostolic Tradition:
1. Matthew 16:18 — Is the ‘rock’ Peter or his confession of faith? I’m guessing you’re going to say Peter. I’m going to argue his confession of faith in Christ as the Son of God.
2. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 — All this proves is that the church of Thessalonica ought to adhere to the traditions taught to them by Paul and his comrades (either spoken or written). Who is the audience? In our case there are no more Apostles who are passing down their teaching by word of mouth; that’s why we have the Scripture so that WE can adhere to their teachings as well.
3. 2 Timothy 1:13-14 — Again, who is the audience? Paul is telling Timothy to follow his pattern of teaching. We have Paul’s pattern of teaching in the Bible.
4. 2 Timothy 2:2 — Similar to the above. Timothy is to pass down Paul’s teaching to other faithful men. Again, we have the Bible to pass down Paul’s teachings.
I think the main point I want to stress is that the Apostles (men directly chosen by Jesus himself) were entrusted to pass down the doctrine that would guide the church. I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that the authority invested in the Apostles would (or must) be handed down (a la Apostolic Succession). That is why we don’t have any divine writings after John’s Apocalypse. With the close of the Apostolic era also came the close of the canon. That is also why the church gathered their writings so their teaching and traditions could be passed down to later generations. I just don’t think there is room for any other source of authority than the Scriptures.
Regarding your final point: I cannot deny that the Reformation has produced a large amount of division. That is certainly one of the strongest arguments the RCC can level at Protestants. But again consider what led up to the Reformation in the first place. It was the abuses by the RCC and their teachings which ran counter to the Scriptures but were codified in tradition. What’s better having the Scriptures in the hands of many so they can interpret it themselves and possibly get it wrong, or having the monolithic RCC interpret the Scriptures wrong and propagate that aberrant teaching to others, condemning many? I think that was the conundrum Luther faces when he was translating the Bible from Latin into German. He erred on the side of bringing the Scriptures into the hands of the people; I would have to concur.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. (and thanks for using “bupkus”!)
I’ll let them remain the final word (at least as far as I’m concerned). Though I would love to hear you expound on your exegisis of Matt 16:18 in another post.
But I will take a minute to address your final challenge…
The Belgic Confession itself, in Article 7, states that “all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.” So arguing that Luther’s interpretation of certain Scriptures was somehow more valid than that of the Church Christ founded, is hard to believe. Especially when your own Confession claims Luther to be a vain liar.
Concerning gross abuses of men in the Catholic Church, I acknowledge, perhaps in unity with Article 7’s commentary on men’s condition, that they are sinful and have always been part of the biggest hindrance from others joining us in our Christian faith. As G.K. Chesterton once quipped about the most effective argument against his faith… “Christians.”
Luther was justified in his frustration with the abuses he saw in practice. But it was not the doctrines of the Catholic Church that were in contradiction to the Scriptures but rather the abuse of their practice. Luther threw the baby out with the bath water. Thankfully, the Catholic Church responded by condemning the abuses in Trent all the while affirming the Sacred Tradition passed down from the Apostles. Though Luther, unfortunately, took the prideful position that his individual interpretation was more authoritative than all the saints that had gone before him, and that the Church had been in err all this time – not unlike Mormon founder, Joseph Smith. When Luther disagreed with a Church doctrine he just edited the Scriptures to fit his new theology.
I know you’ll disagree and suggest his interpretations, when combined with the other reformers, unearthed the unadulterated interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, guided by the Holy Spirit, consequently saving Christians from the evil counterfeit that had overtaken Christ’s Church. But I hope that you’ll concede that unlike the Trinity, which developed over time and which had faithful adherents all along the way, that the Reformers’ doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura were utter creations without any trace of Apostolic tradition or historical support for 1500 years. Perhaps, as you may argue, God intended to have these foundational doctrines hidden from His children for all that time, but it doesn’t seem very likely (not to mention consistent with Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church). One can certainly argue as you do that their interpretation of Scripture supports such doctrines, but the fact remains that the Reformers stood on a theological island in the 16th century, without any support for their interpretations tracing back to the Apostles. It’s become cliche now, but Cardinal Newman’s famous statement is fitting here – “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Lastly, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that when you point out “Luther brought the Scriptures to the people,” you meant so philosophically rather than practically, since the Catholic Church had had German translations of the Scriptures in the hands of the German people for well over a century before Luther’s birth.
Ryan,
So you liked “bupkus?”
Before going on, let me commend you on two things: 1) The extent of your knowledge and learning; 2) the breadth and clarity of your comments.
Allow me to highlight a small fraction of your comment:
In this situation, I’m not even sure what I would argue as whatever I say about God’s motivations and intentions would be the purest speculation. However, it seems this comment (and the overall tenor of your response) is that the church cannot err. Not that the church is infallible per se, but that when it comes to doctrine and faith, the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truth (a la John 16:13). (Another question: Who was the audience of that statement, the apostles or the church?)
It’s a good point; why would God seemingly mislead his people for so long? I would ask, is this unprecedented? Can we think of any other times in history when God ‘mislead’ (I would prefer to say “hid his face”) his people? How about Israel? Why were the prophets of old sent to Israel? Because they strayed (badly) from the covenant. In many cases in the Bible, the prophet God sent was the only lone voice crying out against God’s people (do you see the parallel I’m going to make?). I can imagine the collected scholars of Israel saying “Who is this guy who stands against the king and priest of God’s people? We are the keepers of the Law and the defenders of the truth! We have been God’s stewards for 1,000+ years. I can trace my lineage all the way back to Aaron himself…”
I’m not saying unequivocally that the RCC is apostate Israel and Luther was Isaiah (or Ezekiel or Jeremiah). All I’m saying is it’s not unheard of that God’s people — by increments — get way off course and that God has to ’send a prophet’ to get back on course. The history of the Church (both Catholic and Protestant) is one of an ebb and flow between revival and apostasy. I think of Isaiah (or was it Elijah) who bemoaned the fact that he alone was faithful in Israel; and God had to tell him that 7,000 priests had not yet bent the knee to Baal. I also think of Paul’s statement in Romans 1 about “God giving them over;” sometimes God judges us by letting us experience the full effect of our sin.
This rigid stand that the RCC is God’s Church and therefore cannot be mistaken when it comes to doctrine, almost smacks of an uncritical attitude toward ‘my side’ and a lack of awareness at just how good human beings are at rationalization.
I know I said I’d let you have the last word, and I still mean it, but after thinking through your last argument about God deliberately withholding foundational doctrines until the sixteenth century, I want to applaud this response. I think it’s as good of a response to this inconsistency as I’ve ever read. It’s also honest. Some would go out of their way to pick and choose through the Fathers (out-of-context, I might add), to support the pre-existence of these doctrines in early Christendom. It’s refreshing to have such heartfelt and thoughtful dialogue with you and look forward to sharpening iron together in the future.