Bible Alone? Part 4
Over the last few days I’ve been looking at the subject of Sola Scriptura. Today I would like to discuss the alternative to Sola Scriptura which I realized made more sense of both history and the Biblical data…
The Alternative: Apostolic Authority
Ironically, the answer itself was in Scripture. After the Ascension, writing the New Testament wasn’t the priority because it wasn’t what Jesus commanded the Apostles to do. At the Great Commission Jesus told His disciples to “teach” all nations what He had taught them (as opposed to write a book). If you wanted to know the truth in c. 30AD you would go to Jesus. Who would you go to after the Ascension? You would go to the Apostles He taught and commissioned. It was this living Tradition that sustained the Church – primarily by orally passing on to others what Jesus had taught. Jesus wanted to found a Church, not a book club.
In the Book of Acts, when there was a disagreement over the question of Gentile circumcision, the Christians didn’t use Scripture to decide the answer, but called a Church Council. I could only think of one Church today which still calls [Ecumenical] councils to resolve matters of doctrine and practice…
The more I read Scripture, the clearer it became that the Early Church was one which exercised authority (1 Corinthians 16:16, Hebrews 13:17) given to her by Christ – to forgive sins, no less! Even in my most anti-Catholic moments I could still clearly see that Matthew 16 showed Christ giving Peter a special authority. I could only think of one Church today which claimed to still have that same authority passed on from Peter….
“If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?” – St. Cyprian (A.D. 251)
But What About Today?
Okay, so the Early Church exercised authority, but the Apostles are dead. What about today? Scripture points to apostolic succession. Firstly, Matthew 16 clearly alludes to the office of Prime Minister in the Davidic Kingdom in which the keys of authority were passed from one Prime Minister to the next. Next, in Acts 1:16-20 Peter says that they have to replace Judas because his office (literally “episcope”, the word from which we get episcopacy) was vacant. Also later, the Apostles appointed Deacons (Acts 6:1-6)
There is nothing to suggest that after the last Apostle died, that all the Church would have to go on would be Sacred Scripture. Clement, the third Pope after Peter (and possibly the person referred to in Philippians 4:3), attests to this in his letter to the Corinthians:
“Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God… [T]hey appointed the first fruits [of their labours]…to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.” – St. Clement, Bishop of Rome (c. AD 96)
I would later find it illuminating to see how the generations after the Apostles fought heresy. In AD 180, St. Irenaeus challenged the Gnostic heretics to show their apostolic credentials. If they had the real truth about Jesus, they had to be able to show their connection back to Him and to the Apostles. Irenaeus said that the apostolic credentials for all Christian bishops could be proved. He choose to demonstrate this claim with (unsurprisingly) the Episcopacy of the Bishop Rome:
“…that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; … which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority…
…The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate [of Rome]. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him…Clement… This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus…Alexander…Sixtus…Telephorus…Hyginus… Anicetus…Soter…[and] Eleutherius does now…hold the inheritance of the episcopate.
“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. – Against Heresies III.3.3 (c. AD 180)
And this succession of Bishops continues to this very day. In Apostolic Succession I found the solution to all the problems of Sola Scriptura. Christ left a Church to teach the world and some of this teaching was written down in the special form we call Sacred Scripture. It was the Church who testified to the veracity of the sacred books and it was the Church who assembled them into a definitive canon in 4th Century. The Church who wrote, assembled and preserved these writings is also the one who is called to interpret them faithfully.
” I could only think of one Church today which still calls councils to resolve matters of doctrine and practice…”
Along with the Roman Catholic Church, I’d point you to the Methodist Church http://www.methodist.org.uk/ which meets in it’s annual Conference to deicide matters of doctrine and practice along with other things http://www.methodistconference.org.uk/
Morning Rev! Welcome to Restless Pilgrim
I probably should have qualified that statement a bit – I had in mind the Ecumenical Councils (since most ecclesiastical communities have meetings of some kind)
Thank you for this enlightening four part post David!
This was a comment I received on Facebook:
I read your post about bible alone. I’m sorry that your need for formality is a requirement for your relationship with God. I also don’t understand why anyone would have a need to ask any priest for forgiveness? Didn’t Jesus give us an all encompassing prayer that covered asking Him for forgiveness? Have you listened to John MacArthur free recordings in his website? Gty.org if you’re still hungry. Look under media and type in what you’re looking for under search menu. Try the Catholic Church and you’ll find various answers to your questions. I now see why the church is so much bigger than CHRIST’s crucifixion. Is it true that your communion you re crucify Jesus’ body again? That the catholic’s communion is not a remembrance. Best ask a pries before you answer that question with your own knowledge. Also if the Catholic Church is dominate over the scripture of a stronger compliment than I guess heaven is definitely for the masses and it’s not a narrow path.
> I’m sorry that your need for formality is a requirement for your relationship with God
Sorry, how do you reach that conclusion? My relationship with God is immensely personal!
> I also don’t understand why anyone would have a need to ask any priest for forgiveness?
I think this would be a good idea for a future post, but the simple answer is that Jesus set it up that way (John 20:22-23) in fulfillment of Old Testament practice (Leviticus 5).
On a more personal, experiential level, I can tell you that confessing your sins is immensely humbling. I’ve found it to be a strong remedy in the struggle against sin since it’s far easier to notice patterns of sin when you’re talking to someone about it every few weeks. It’s also extremely powerful to audibly hear those words “Go in peace. Your sins are forgiven”. Praying with my spiritual father is one of my favourite things each month.
Praying with my spiritual father is one of my favourite things each month.
Do you believe that the Holy Bible is true or not?
If so then what do we do with the Scripture from the Holy Bible which says there is only one Father. It expressly says “And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven..” Matthew 23:9 KJV
A mere man may be able to teach us the Holy Scriptures, however, we must be careful here because if man teaches contrary to the scriptures it is heresy according to the original doctrine taught by the apostles.
Also I have trouble with adding a book written specifically for one “religion” and ascribing it validity and as equal with the original manuscripts. ie Catechism
Does not the Holy Bible warn about adding to the what was written in the Holy Scriptures? And, the entire account of the Bible poinst to Jesus as the Holy One of the Father and the One who came to save us yet Catholicism focuses more on Mary and her virtue and holiness and your “holy father” ( which by the way, I consider blasphemy) than on Jesus or the Father in Heaven.
It seems as though your religion just keeps Jesus around to attract followers to your church.
Please believe that I do not mean to be harsh or condemning. I just cannot accept the Catholic teachings as true because they seem in many cases contrary to Scripture, mostly because they lift up, worship and deify man – the created of God – as though he were God.
Hey Diane, welcome to Restless Pilgrim 🙂
> Praying with my spiritual father is one of my favourite things each month. Do you believe that the Holy Bible is true or not? If so then what do we do with the Scripture from the Holy Bible which says there is only one Father. It expressly says “And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven..” Matthew 23:9 KJV
This doesn’t have anything to do with my article, but if I’m understanding you correctly, are you objecting to the Catholic practice of calling priests “Father”? If so, I’m not convinced by your exegesis of Matthew 23:9. Jesus is clearly using hyperbole. After all, if you were to interpret that passage in the literalistic fashion you’re suggesting, we wouldn’t be allowed to call our male biological parent “father”.
But what about spiritual fatherhood? Is that what Jesus is condemning? Well, if He is, then St. Paul is guilty of sin since, in his letters, he often speaks of his spiritual fatherhood: “Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” – 1 Corinthians 4:15.
Out of interest, what do you call those who are in authority over you at your congregation?
> A mere man may be able to teach us the Holy Scriptures, however, we must be careful here because if man teaches contrary to the scriptures it is heresy according to the original doctrine taught by the apostles.
According to whose interpretation? If “Pastor X” interprets the Scriptures one way and “Pastor Y” interprets the Scriptures another way, how do you determine which is “the original doctrine taught by the apostles”?
> Also I have trouble with adding a book written specifically for one “religion” and ascribing it validity and as equal with the original manuscripts. ie Catechism
Firstly, the word “religion” is not a bad word, the Scriptures themselves use the word in a positive sense (even the KJV version)
Secondly, a Catechism is simply a book which explains the faith in a systematic way. The Catholic Church has had many over the years. It is not regarded as “inspired”, something which we would only use to describe Sacred Scripture.
Thirdly, Catholicism isn’t the only Christian denomination who has had catechisms: Calvin, Luther and most of the Reformers put out catechisms. These were simply books which taught the faith as they understood the Scriptures.
Since you mention “the original manuscripts” (which we don’t posses), could you explain how you know what books should be in the Bible?
> Does not the Holy Bible warn about adding to the what was written in the Holy Scriptures?
That is correct…
The first occurrence is Deuteronomy 4:2 which, if interpreted literalistically, would mean that the Bible should contain, at most, five books!
The next warning appears in Revelation 22:18-9 where John warns his readers not to tamper with the revelation given in that book.
Given that you quoted from the KJV, did you know that the KJV contains a verse which cannot be found in even a single Greek manuscript? Revelation 16:5 in the KJV reads “Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be“. No Greek manuscript in our possession reads “…and shalt be”. Beza inserted a conjectural emendation because he didn’t like how ALL the other Greek manuscripts read: “Just art thou in these thy judgments, thou who art and wast, O Holy One“. In your opinion, would this count as tampering with God’s Word?
> And, the entire account of the Bible poinst[sic] to Jesus as the Holy One of the Father and the One who came to save us…
Indeed it does!
> …yet Catholicism focuses more on Mary and her virtue and holiness and your “holy father” ( which by the way, I consider blasphemy) than on Jesus or the Fath[sic]
How do you know this? Have you read the Catechism? I’m afraid you comment betrays the fact that you haven’t since, if you had, you would know that this statement is untrue. Can you substantiate your assertion that the Catechism talks more about Mary and the Pope than it does about Jesus?
I’m afraid your objection to calling the Pope “holy father” is ill-founded, as I explain here.
> It seems as though your religion just keeps Jesus around to attract followers to your church
Of course, that’s the point of the Church, to be the Body of Christ and to bring people to Jesus!
> Please believe that I do not mean to be harsh or condemning
That’s fine, I’m not easily offended.
> I just cannot accept the Catholic teachings as true because they seem in many cases contrary to Scripture…
According to whose interpretation? Yours? Are your interpretations always infallible?
> …mostly because they lift up, worship and deify man – the created of God – as though he were God
This is very general complaint. Where do you think the Catholic Church does this?
Finally, I’m happy to have a back and forth, but in future please try and remain a little closer to the topic of the article, which in this case was Sola Scriptura.
> Didn’t Jesus give us an all encompassing prayer that covered asking Him for forgiveness?
Are you thinking of the Our Father here? It’s important to note that it’s not an either/or situation. It’s not like Catholics don’t pray to God and ask for forgiveness. In fact, in Night Prayer which is said daily, there is an “examination of conscience” and a penitential rite, something like: “Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy” or “I confess to Almighty God, and you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do…”
So Catholics do indeed pray to God for forgiveness. However, my question for you would be this: why did Jesus give the Apostles the power to forgive sins if he didn’t expect them to use it?
> Have you listened to John MacArthur free recordings in his website? Gty.org if you’re still hungry.
I’m familiar with his work. I own a couple of his books and I like a good chunk of his preaching. The same is true for a quite a few other Protestant preachers.
I typically start to take issue with what MacArthur says though when he starts heading down distinctly Calvanistic lines of thought.
> Look under media and type in what you’re looking for under search menu. Try the Catholic Church and you’ll find various answers to your questions.
I’ve read some of his apologetics material before and I’m afraid wasn’t very impressed. For example, since we’re about to celebrate Easter, it’s worth pointing out that MacArthur also thinks it’s a Pagan holiday. My friend Joe demonstrates why he’s wrong.
Also, since you mentioned priesthood it’s probably worth mentioning that Joe has responded to some of MacArthur’s comments on that subject as well.
Again, I like a lot of what MacArthur has to say, but unfortunately when it comes to Catholicism he’s really not a very good authority.
> I now see why the church is so much bigger than CHRIST’s crucifixion.
I’m afraid I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. The Church flows from Christ’s crucifixion. Like Eve, the Bride of Christ springs forth from his pierced side.
> Is it true that your communion you re crucify Jesus’ body again?
Nope, I’m afraid that’s a common misconception about the Catholic understanding of Holy Communion.
> That the catholic’s communion is not a remembrance
It is that…but also much, much more…
> Best ask a pries[sic] before you answer that question with your own knowledge
No need. Here’s what the Catechism says:
1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.
> Also if the Catholic Church is dominate over the scripture of a stronger compliment than I guess heaven is definitely for the masses and it’s not a narrow path.
I was getting a little worried that you didn’t read the series! This post was about Sola Scriptura, after all. Unfortunately, now that you’ve turned to the subject of scripture…I don’t understand what you’re trying to say :-/
Would you mind trying to rephrase your statement?