Sunday, December 3, 2023

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND JESUS

 

Then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and set Him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto Him, “If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down: for it is written, ‘He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone.’”  Jesus said unto him, “It is written again, ‘thou shalt not tempt the Lord, thy God.’” (Matthew 4:5-7)

This is the second of the devil’s temptations of Jesus recorded in Matthew’s gospel.  I find this particular temptation very interesting in the way that Jesus responds to Satan.  The devil actually quotes Psalm 91:11-12 to Jesus in order to trick Him into doing something foolish.  But think of the irony – the arch-enemy of Jesus Christ is quoting the Word of God (Scripture) to the very Word of God, Himself, in the flesh (Jesus Christ).  I think that it is safe to say that Jesus was familiar enough with the written Word of God to answer the devil correctly.

Nevertheless, I want to point out what is actually happening here in Matthew, from a doctrinal standpoint.  Jesus is reinforcing a well established concept – “Scripture interprets Scripture.”  That is, we can take the simpler and clearer passages that we all agree on and we can use those to establish principles to help us understand the less understood passages.

Notice that Jesus overcame the devil all three times with the phrase “It is written,” that is, with Scripture (Matthew 4:1-10).  On this particular occasion, He tells the devil, “It is written again…”!  He doesn’t try to invoke tradition, or the authority of some kind of Jewish “magisterium” like the Sanhedrin, or some past Hebrew council to thwart the enemy of our soul.  No, He goes even farther into the Word of God, because Scripture interprets Scripture. 

When someone misuses Scripture in a debate with you, you don’t have to divert to some other source – you go deeper into Scripture to clear the air.  You tell them, “But it is also written…”  You counter with the whole counsel of God in Scripture, always using it in context. 

This is the concept of Sola Scriptura, which is basically defined in this way:

Scripture is the ultimate rule of faith for the church today because it is the only infallible one.  Other tools and sources can be used to help us in our Christian walk, but they are not infallible.  No other source is on the same level as Scripture.  We would do well to trust the church’s ultimate rule of faith.  

For a deeper understanding of the topic, the reader can type “Sola Scriptura” in the search bar in the upper left-hand corner of this page to view many articles on this topic.

A Much-Ignored Chapter

The apostle Paul reinforced this same concept in 2 Timothy 3.  This chapter is not in the Bible just to take up space.  It is an antidote to false teaching.  Second Timothy is the final epistle of the apostle Paul’s writings and there is certainly a sense of urgency in his message.  He knows that he will soon be martyred and he is leaving some very important “last words” for the church.  He warns that in the last days perilous times will come, doctrinally and otherwise (v. 1).  In the next few verses (v.2-9), he prophesies in graphic detail the circumstances with which the church will have to deal.  But many don’t realize that Paul was telling us that the threat would come from within the church!  We all know that the unbelieving world behaves in the way Paul describes, but Paul is talking about some who would be “having a form of godliness” (v. 5), coming to the “knowledge of the truth” (v. 7), and “reprobate concerning the faith” (v. 8).  So again, he is referring to some in the church whose doctrine and lives are perverted.  This is an apostasy, a falling from the faith, a spiritual cancer in the church and it must certainly be dealt with.  We can undeniably see much of this happening even today.

Paul continues and now switches his focus to the faithful:

But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions…”  (v. 10-12).  Notice the first thing listed here is doctrine. He goes on:

“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (v. 13).

He is about to give Timothy a remedy for the great deception that is coming.

“But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (v. 14).

The apostle assures the faithful that his doctrine is the truth and that he is trustworthy.

But Catholics will insist that “the things thou hast learned” and “hast been assured of” refers to “Sacred Tradition.”  It is no doubt true that the precise words of Scripture were not the only words that Paul shared with them.  Obviously, he had also shared other things that were not specifically written down in the Word.  So, Catholics will say that Paul had to be referring to tradition.  But the fact that tradition is not specifically mentioned here (while Scripture will be), and what Paul goes on to tell them, clarifies his point.

The Solution

Now, the apostle will mention the cure for surviving these latter day trials and doctrinal problems:

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (v. 15).    

Ok, so he specifically lists Scripture as the answer to problems in doctrine and behavior.  Now, many Catholics will say that this passage only refers to the Old Testament Scriptures, and therefore, this (supposedly) refutes the “Bible only” doctrine, since it would actually mean “Old Testament only.”  But this idea is refuted in the next verse:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (v. 16). 

This verse (along with v. 17) is savagely attacked by many non-believers in Sola Scriptura, especially Catholics, and I believe it is because these two verses are so clear, and they don’t like what the text is saying.  Like I said above, most of the attacks are coming from those who claim to be Christians today, and the attack on this passage is a case in point.  But this passage’s detractors don’t want it to be true and will fight tooth and nail in attempting to destroy its clear and simple meaning. 

“Only” Scripture?

Many will claim that the text doesn’t say “ONLY Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” etc., etc., but all Scripture, therefore Sola Scriptura cannot be right.  While the word “only” is not used, a simple assessment of the context will show that the concept is indeed there, as we will soon see.  Just because specific phrases or words are absent, does not negate the idea of a given concept.  Context will determine the intended idea.  So, let’s not be so quick to rule out the concept of “only Scripture” as the ultimate rule of faith.  Keep reading.

The term “by inspiration of God” is rendered “God-breathed” in the Greek.  This would of course denote infallibility in that source.  Note that there is no other rule of faith mentioned in all of Scripture that is given the title “God-breathed.”

This fact alone leans heavily toward the concept of Scripture alone.  But there’s more…

“Merely” Profitable?

But many Catholics try to say that Scripture is only profitable, since it doesn’t use the term “sufficient.”  But why do Catholics focus on the supposed “weakness” of the word “profitable, yet ignore the power and sufficiency of terms like “inspired” and “thoroughly furnished” (fully equipped) in the same context?  It seems as though there is a double standard here.

But the term “inspired” (or “God-breathed”) in this same passage does not allow for such a low view of the term “profitable.”  It’s like saying that God is “merely good” to us and nothing more.  But no one who is serious about serving God would say this.

As I mentioned above, they will say that all of Scripture was not yet written at the time of Paul’s epistle, so it couldn’t be referring to the New Testament, could it?  But, using that same line of reasoning, does anyone think that Paul really meant “All Scripture written up to this time, but not the rest of it” is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?  Absolutely not. 

That would be like a Catholic saying, “All infallible/ex-cathedra statements of the Catholic Church are true.”  And we could then ask, “Does that mean that ONLY the ones proclaimed UP TO THIS POINT are true and that future ones may be false?”  No, he would argue that “all” means all.  Remember, Paul was not just addressing the needs of the early church, but also those of the future church (v. 1), as well.  So, this argument doesn’t hold.

When Paul said “All Scripture,” he was looking ahead and including everything that God ever intended to be Scripture.  Otherwise, you’d have to say that not all of the New Testament was God-breathed! 

The Complete and Sufficient “Toolbox”

And finally:

“That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (v. 17).

So we see here that Scripture is able to make one perfect (i.e., mature and complete) and throughly [thoroughly] furnished for “all good works.”  Now, remember, starting from v. 10, Paul is focusing heavily on doctrine, and Scripture is the remedy for this great deception.  So, doctrinally speaking, if this book we call the Bible is 1) infallible, 2) able to keep us from deception, and 3) able to equip us for every/all good works, then we need no other infallible source.

To use an analogy, if you were an auto mechanic and your boss gave you a toolbox that equipped you for every auto mechanic’s job that you could possibly run into, wouldn’t that toolbox be sufficient?  Yes, it would.  Do you need another toolbox for foreign cars or pick-up trucks?  No, not if the one he gave you equips you for every mechanic’s job.  Again, this mechanic’s toolbox would suffice.

In the same way, Scripture is our rule of faith, our “toolbox” of doctrine which equips us for every good work.  Since this is true, there is no other source needed today TO FUNCTION AS AN INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH.  By definition, Scripture is all that is needed.  So the Bible necessarily and effectively eclipses and replaces any other source that claims to be an infallible rule of faith.

No tradition is on the same level as Scripture, unless that tradition is both 1) already part of the Bible and 2) in line with its principles.  For example, Jesus’ mention of the tradition of the Pharisees (Mark 15:1-13) is certainly referred to in the Bible, but it is excluded as an authoritative source because it doesn’t line up with the rest of Scripture.  And any other tradition whose concepts are not in line with the Bible’s are also rejected.

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has never been able to clearly and exactly say what the contents of its tradition are in any meaningful way.  They will give us extremely vague definitions of tradition, or distract people by giving some examples of Sacred Tradition, but they can’t identify the whole of Catholic Tradition with certainty, and the Catholic Church’s weak attempts at doing so are an absolute joke.  See these articles:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-lonely-pilgrim-and-sacred-tradition.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

Conclusion

There are many who would want to add other “authorities” to the Bible, and even claim they are equal to it.  But it always happens that when something other than Scripture is introduced as an “equal supplement” (like tradition, councils or “magisteriums”), Scripture always gets put on the back burner, and truth takes a serious hit.

We see here in this article only a tiny portion of the writings of one of the greatest apostles who ever lived – a man whom God infallibly used to write one third of the New Testament.  Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this man was used to reveal (and unpack the details of) a most critical doctrine just before he was martyred by an evil and ungodly generation of men.  The apostle Paul gives us the clearest understanding of the concept of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone as the ultimate and only infallible rule of faith for the church today).  Will the church in this modern day embrace and take advantage of this teaching?  Regretfully, the truth is that many will not, thus hastening the apostasy of which Paul spoke (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

Today, more than ever, we need to recognize the power of Scripture as our ultimate source for doctrine and guidance, and to guard against the inevitable deception and false teaching we’re seeing in the modern (and last days) church.  That is the purpose of Sola Scriptura.

 

24 comments:

  1. Could you respond to this article attacking the clarity of Scripture? If Scripture is not clear as Catholic say, that would be a real problem for SS i need some help:

    https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/refuting-protestantisms-clarity-doctrine-of-scripture

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Anonymous,

      Thanks for your question.

      I read the link you posted and I am finding that there is nothing new under the sun, my friend. These are the same old, worn out arguments that Catholics have pushed since the beginning.

      Catholics use Scripture all the time in trying to prove their own doctrines. I guess it’s ok for THEM to understand it, just not Protestants.

      Yes, what seems perfectly clear to them in Scripture are the uniquely Catholic doctrines and how the Catholic Church is the one true Church. Yet, you won’t find these things in Scripture, but it seems that it’s very apparent to them. Funny how that works.

      Of course, they always point to divisions/disunity in Protestantism as “proof” of the “non-clarity” of Scripture. See this link on Catholic “unity”:

      https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/12/sola-scriptura-and-divisions.html

      Catholics harp on the “non-perspicuous” nature of Scripture, but how about the supposed “clarity” of Catholic Tradition and its contents? To my knowledge, this has never been answered, at least not meaningfully. See here:

      https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-lonely-pilgrim-and-sacred-tradition.html

      https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

      Some will mock Protestants when we say that Scripture is clear/perspicuous. How do we know? Because the Bible says so. It is clearly implied by Jesus Himself. See here:

      https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

      This argument is not at all a problem for Sola Scriptura. Misuse of a sufficient source (Scripture) does not negate that source.

      Don’t let them bully you with tricky or deceptive arguments.

      Delete
  2. If scripture is the ultimate authority, how do we know what is scripture and what is not. There are difference between Catholics, Orthodox , and Protestants on what constitutes scripture?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello Anonymous,

    Your question seems to be about our certainty of the canon. Knowing, or not knowing, exactly what the canon is does not negate the fact that a true canon exists. So, even if one does not know the proper canon, he can still be assured of the transcendency, infallibility and trustworthiness of the Bible. All the groups you mentioned accept the book of 2 Timothy, which details the reasons for Sola Scriptura, as I demonstrated in the article.

    To be honest, the concept of knowing the true canon was a tough issue for me in the past. But it all makes sense once you realize that the early church had to use their discernment, and had to evaluate the available evidence, and reason with their fallible minds to come to a conclusion on their canon.

    You see, we don’t have to know the canon infallibly. But God does give us sufficient certainty.

    If you disagree, consider this important question:

    Is it mandatory for EVERY believer to have INFALLIBLE certainty on the FULL canon in order to be saved and to live for God?

    See these articles for more details:

    https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html
    https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, I get that. But you did not answer my question. How do we know who has the right canon?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would you care to tell us what your name is? Who are you?

      Delete
  5. Anonymous,

    If you read the two links I provided, you will get detailed information on your question.

    The issue on the canon revolves around the Old Testament. That is where the three groups you mentioned have differences, and I don’t think anyone has any qualms with the New Testament canon.

    Furthermore, the Pharisees were always a thorn in Jesus’ flesh. But notice that the one problem that Jesus DIDN’T have with the Pharisees was their canon. If He did have a problem with their canon, He probably would have told them so. From what I understand, they (the Jewish leaders) believed in the same O.T. canon as Protestants do today. And the apostle Paul tells us that it was the JEWS who were entrusted with “the oracles,” the very words of God (Romans 3:2).

    For these reasons above, I believe that the Protestants have the right canon.

    Who do you say has it right? And why?

    ReplyDelete
  6. What was the canon of the Pharisees at the time of Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect that this is either the "Ethan" (or one of his cronies) that I had banned from my site years back or the "Perfect Mugwagwa" you had banned from here.

      Delete
    2. Instead of playing dumb, you could tell us what your name is. I've disbanded anonymous comments on my site because I always used to get this kind of crap.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous,

    I'm beginning to think that you are simply playing games and you don't really want to dialogue. I've answered your questions, but you have not answered any of mine and it looks like you don't intend to.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I believe you have only asked one question. I would say that it appears that the Bible of the Orthodox and the Catholic Church are most in line with Bible that was recognized by the Jews of Jesus’ time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Old Testament as presented by both groups doesn't even align with each other so that doesn't hold much water.

      Delete
    2. The Eastern Orthodox Church does not even have a unanimous consensus as to what comprises the Old Testament canon.

      Delete
  9. Anonymous,

    Again, it looks more and more like you really do not want to have a discussion. You are just throwing out loaded one-liners with no evidence whatsoever to back up anything you said. You're not even trying.

    What also makes me suspicious is that you are ignoring Jesse’s comments concerning your identity. I think we are done here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am Thomas. You seem to have me confused with the person that made all those comments relating to Rome's supposed infallibility and the inquisition. If I comment further I will identify by say Thomas.

      Delete
  10. Thomas,

    How do you even know about the person who made comments about Rome's infallibility and the inquisition? I said nothing at all about that here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thomas here. Simple I read the comments on this post: “IF YOU CAN’T FIND JESUS, LOOK FOR HIS MOTHER”

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thomas again. It seems that the Jews at the time of Jesus on earth had the Septuagint as the canon and that it was quoted many times by the New Testament authors. Would you agree?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mug! I believe that you've been unmasked. What are the odds of there being two different individuals who comment anonymously with your same name and similar writing style. This has already been documented elsewhere:

      https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html

      Russell and I were not born yesterday.

      As to your question, the authors of the New Testament would have been versed in the Hebrew canon and the LXX.

      Delete
  13. Thomas,

    First of all, you imply that you are not the same person who wrote (quote) “all those comments relating to Rome’s supposed infallibility and the inquisition.” But your style and manner of writing seem suspiciously similar.

    Nevertheless, I could be wrong and I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and continue this discussion with you – as long as you clearly answer all my questions and be truthful and respectful.

    Secondly, you used the words “supposed infallibility” above concerning the Catholic Church. Are you Catholic? Are you a believer in the infallibility of the Catholic Church or no? If yes, then why use the word "supposed"?

    Thirdly, did you, or did you not, read the two links that I told you about?

    https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html
    https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

    We’ll start from there, and then I can start answering your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Answer my aquiments and I will answer yours.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mug,

    You don't get to demand anything. You are deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jesse,

    Thanks for your input. I had a feeling it was him!

    ReplyDelete