|
He looked like death warmed over. “I’ve done
all I can do. I just don’t know what to say any longer.” He
looked defeated, and tired.
I sighed and said nothing at first. I had been
through this too many times to count, but it never got any
easier, never got enjoyable. I settled a little more deeply
into the chair in his office and took a deep breath.
“Roger,” I began, “I truly do not believe it is
a matter of what you have, or have not, said. People who make
this decision do it for many, many reasons, and only rarely do
they do so for strictly theological ones. I am sure, if we
could dig a little deeper, we would find many personal reasons
that have nothing to do with formal theological issues.”
He nodded in response. “Of course, I know.
But it is so tremendously difficult to see someone simply
abandon the gospel and walk into the arms of heresy. You want
to do something.”
“Believe me, I know” I replied. “But I learned
a long time ago that you cannot force someone to hear you.
You cannot force someone to think rationally, to obey truth,
or to recognize error, if they have chosen not to do so. It
is beyond your capacity. Nor can you judge your ministry of
the Word on the basis of such an action by someone in your
congregation. The Apostles faced this same situation, so
surely it was not a matter of failure for them, nor for you.”
“I know all these things” he said with a heavy
sigh. He paused, then said, “But it really doesn’t make me
feel any better right now.”
I smiled, “I know. So, your suggestion that
she talk to me was ignored? Let me guess....I’m too, let’s see,
harsh? Unloving?”
“You guessed it” he chuckled. “Seems the
double standard doesn’t bother her. Her new found mentors can
write or say anything, but if anyone responds to their
arguments, and in fact refutes them, well, they are unloving
and unkind and unChristian. You name the excuse.”
“Been there, done that.” I leaned forward a
bit. “Well, your next move is not enjoyable, but necessary.”
“I know. I can’t believe we have to discipline
someone who grew up in our midst.”
“She has embraced deadly heresy, Roger. God’s
people must be warned. And we can only hope the seriousness
of the response will communicate to her the gravity of what
she has done. Besides, I think you will want to spend some
time going over the foundations of the faith from the pulpit
once again, just to make sure everyone is clear on the
basics.”
“Indeed.” He rose from his chair and stood in
front of a large shelf filled with books. He pulled down a
hefty volume and opened it. “I have always sought to be
faithful in preaching the whole counsel of God. She heard it
preached over and over again. I thought she loved the
truth....” His voice trailed off.
I stood. “Elders are not given a supernatural
ability to see into the hearts of their congregations. Nor
are you expected to. You exhort, you warn, you encourage, you
teach. And you trust in Christ’s promise to build His church,
but in His way, in His time. You hope the best, especially
for those who are under your ministry for years, but you know
that longevity is not a sure sign of calling. And, of course,
we don’t know how long this fascination with Rome will last.
Sacramentalism cannot long satisfy the heart of the truly
redeemed, and if she is, well, the honeymoon can’t last
forever.”
“Yes, of course. Well, thank you for coming.
I will keep you appraised of any developments in the
situation.”
“Please do” I replied, and walked out of his
office into the gathering dusk. As I fought through rush hour
traffic I pondered yet another example of why it is so utterly
vital to not only understand biblical sufficiency, but to be
passionate about it, both in one’s own personal faith,
and for those called to the eldership, in one’s proclamation
and teaching. A fine Christian pastor and church would now
face the difficult questions that always follow an act of
theological apostasy: why? What are the real reasons?
Did the church fail in some fashion? How do we now respond to
this person? And for those who are former Roman Catholics
themselves, the questions would be even more difficult to
answer. Literally millions of people have left Rome, seeking
something beyond the dead formalism of sacramentalism based
upon man’s acts, man’s merits. So how could someone go the
other direction, especially when they had known, or seemed to
know, the truth?
I pulled into the driveway and turned off the
engine. One portion of the pastor’s comments rang in my
ears. It wasn’t because it was anything I had not heard
before. In fact, that was exactly why I could not get it out
of my mind: I have heard it over, and over, and over again,
with such regularity that it must represent a common delusion
coming down upon those who refuse to love the truth (2
Thessalonians 2:10). His words were clear....
“The constant refrain was, ‘sola scriptura is
not biblical, nor is it historical. I just can’t believe it
anymore.’ I could not get her past that one issue. She
refused to hear any counter-argument; she refused to apply the
same standards to Rome she was applying to the Bible and
Protestant churches. It was like it was a mantra--not really a
cohesive thought, but a feeling, a chant, something that
must be true. I had seen the same kind of look and
experienced the same kind of responses when talking to Mormons
and Jehovah’s Witnesses when we would touch on one of their
“pet” doctrines. They just have to be right about
that, for if they are not, the entire system crumbles. That
is how it was with sola scriptura--it just had to
be wrong. It was obviously the lynch-pin of her entire new
set of ‘insights.’ I simply couldn’t get her to listen to the
first bit of response to it, but despite that, she remained
fully convinced that she had, in fact, seen the ‘error of her
ways’ and was now following the ‘truth’ in her utter
acceptance of Rome’s claim to final and infallible
authority.” He sat for a moment, shaking his head. “I tell
you, I tried every possible approach to get her to see the
circularity of her thinking....” His voice trailed off again as
he stared out his window. A moment passed and he concluded,
“From day one I have taught the Holy Scriptures are
God-breathed, the very speaking of God, sufficient for all we
need to know to live a life of godliness. It never crossed my
mind that one of my own flock could be tricked into believing
the opposite.”
I fully understood the pain he was feeling, and
the confusion as well. But I also knew that the deep and
abiding commitment to the authority and sufficiency of
the Scriptures could be modeled but not forced
upon anyone, as it truly came from the testimony of the Spirit
to the spirit of the redeemed believer. A person may say they
believe such a divinely imparted truth, but since we cannot
look upon the heart, we cannot know until that belief is
tested.
I kept in contact with Roger over the next few
months, through the process of excommunication, and even had
the opportunity of speaking to his congregation on the divine
truths of sola scriptura and sola fide. There
was a positive, God-honoring response from the people, one
that showed a sober recognition of the importance of divine
truth, and the necessity of a passionate belief in those
doctrines that define the Christian faith. Then, as always
happens, time, and new trials and tribulations, put the
incident in the background, and life went on.
Unbeknownst to Roger or anyone else, however, a
few people in the congregation did not take seriously the
warnings of the elders regarding the seriousness of the error
into which one of their members had fallen, resulting in her
removal. Some felt that “staying in touch” was just fine, and
even though this woman now “fellowshipped elsewhere,” it was
just a matter of doctrinal difference, not anything so serious
as to preclude getting together just like in the “old days.”
And so quietly the situation simmered.
Modern-day converts to Rome, especially those
who fall into the EWTN/Scott Hahn/”The Journey Home” style of
conversion experience, are zealous for their newfound cause.
And they are armed with a legion of heart-tugging audio and
video tapes, along with full color magazines and friendly
sounding books to add to the force of the appeal. There seems
to be something about getting others to “come along” that
helps them to be comforted in their own decision to embrace
Rome’s authority claims. And the questions that come out over
coffee eventually get quite pointed. “So have you ever really
thought about why you believe the Bible alone is enough?”
Then comes the personal story, “See, I was just like you, and
had heard that all my life, but I had just accepted it. But
then I started to read the early church fathers, and found out
that sola scriptura is really just a human tradition,
and we really need an infallible church to guide us into the
fullness of the truth, and that the one true church has been
around for two thousand years!”
And so it goes. At first there is great
hesitation, as most who have been raised in solid Protestant
churches automatically start thinking of all the things they
have heard about the Papacy, the Mass, purgatory, indulgences,
crusades and Inquisitions. But there are answers, albeit
surface level ones, for each of these, and since most
evangelicals have never truly engaged in any meaningful study
of the subject, the bare existence of any answer is
considered to be a good answer.
Former Catholics respond differently, depending
on why they left the Roman communion. If they left for
good reasons, or even for bad ones, but later came to
understand the real reasons why a Christian who loves God’s
truth cannot remain under Rome’s authority, they are much less
likely to be taken in by the “new apologetics” of Rome. But
if they left for the wrong reasons and, as a result, are not
properly founded in the truths of the gospel, they are very
susceptible to the wooing call of Rome, “Come home, come to
what is familiar.”
And so the cancer grows, quietly, often out of
view of the leaders of the congregation. Tapes are listened
to, and eventually a day comes when the prospective convert
realizes that the issues have reached the point where there is
a moral necessity of speaking to the elders of the
church, and yet, very rarely does this happen. Possibly there
is a fear of being rebuked for being so “silly” as to even
consider Rome’s claims. Or maybe there is just a subtle
fascination of something that is “other.” In any case, most
often, by the time the conversations do take place,
Rome’s attacks upon the Bible and the gospel of grace have
already been implicitly accepted. This phase is normally
accompanied by the first visit to a Mass, which, for those who
are not former Catholics, is always a fascinating experience.
And so the phone rang late one afternoon,
during that time when the thought of a nap is strong in the
mind, and Roger’s voice acted like a shot of caffeine,
banishing all thoughts of sleep. All the emotions of the
afternoon meeting months before came back, but with the
sickening addition, “It’s happening again.” But this time
there was a ray of hope: there was a willingness to dialogue
on the part of the new family that had been influenced into
considering leaving the truth and embracing error.
“They have been in contact with an apologist
from upstate who is willing to meet with me. Would you be
willing to engage this man in a direct meeting?” Roger asked.
“It would be my pleasure” I replied.
“I doubt you will be overly surprised to learn
they want to discuss sola scriptura” he said with a bit
of a sigh.
“No, doesn’t surprise me a bit. Standard MO of
the Catholic apologist. But I will not allow the conversation
to be one-sided. Rome’s claims must be examined by the exact
same standard, and that rarely happens in such situations.”
We arranged the meeting for a Tuesday evening.
I accompanied Roger and another elder to the church. The
couple arrived along with the apologist and the former member
of the church who had been excommunicated. The meeting was
held in a Bible Study room, with the group seated around one
of the long tables. The family introduced Paul, the Catholic
apologist. After some small talk, Roger got things going.
“We are here this evening because one of the
precious families in our fellowship has begun having questions
concerning the very foundations of the faith, questions that
could impact not only their fellowship here with us, but, we
believe, their very relationship to God. Out of concern for
God’s truth, and love for those who name His name, we are
taking the time this evening to offer aid and assistance in
answering these questions and reaffirming the gospel message
itself.”
There was a moment of awkward silence, then
Paul spoke up. “I, too, once believed as you believe. I
remember well the fight I put up when I first began studying
the Church’s teachings.”
“You mean the Roman Church’s teachings?” I
inserted.
“Well, yes, the Catholic Church. I had been
very anti-Catholic when I was an evangelical, so it took a
tremendously long and difficult time of study before I came to
see the truth of what the Church teaches. I...”
I interrupted, “I’m sorry, but you say you were
an anti-Catholic? I’m not sure how you define that, but does
that mean you wrote books against the claims of Rome, engaged
in debates, that kind of thing?"
“No, I didn’t write any books or do any
debates, but I was very opposed to Catholicism in general.”
“Did you write any tracts, then, maybe some
articles?”
“No, I didn’t.”
“So, what you mean is you, like most convinced
Protestants, rejected Rome’s claims to absolute authority over
you in doctrinal matters. Doesn’t that mean that all
convinced Protestants are, in your definition,
anti-Catholics?”
“Perhaps I should have used a different term”
Paul said somewhat uncomfortably. “My point is that I know
where you are coming from, and I would like to share some of
the highlights of my journey, a journey others” he said,
glancing toward the former member, “have likewise taken.”
“It was my understanding,” Roger asserted,
“that we came here this evening to answer some basic questions
regarding the authority claims of Rome over against the
authority claims of Scripture itself, specifically, about the
doctrine of sola scriptura.”
“Yes, and that is a big part of my story” Paul
said, leaning forward. “See, it was my inability to define
and defend, biblically, the doctrine of sola scriptura
that truly caused me to make the decision that I needed to
follow Christ’s Church.”
“I would very much like to pursue that
assertion” I picked up, “but we can do so without personal
testimonies. Some in this room once embraced Roman
Catholicism, as well, but we are not seeking to explore those
personal stories this evening. I would like to begin by
asking you to define what you think sola scriptura is.”
“Yes, well, sola scriptura is the belief
that the Bible alone is to be our guide. That we are not to
hold to any traditions.”
“I’m sorry you think that is what the doctrine
states” I replied matter-of-factly.
Paul was definitely not used to being on the
defensive. “Well,” he smiled, “given that there are 28,000
different denominations out there, I’m sure there are about as
many definitions of sola scriptura as there are
denominations.”
“Oh, I thought the new number Roman Catholic
apologists were using was 33,000. I’ve heard so many grossly
inflated numbers it is hard to keep track. If there are 250
meaningful denominations with any substantial historical or
numerical presence I’d be surprised, not counting
non-Christian religions and the like that are often lumped
into such a survey number, like the Mormons, but even then,
those who actually hold to sola scriptura and who seek
to consistently practice it would be an even smaller number.
But the fact remains that no meaningful historical Protestant
denomination has ever put forward the definition of sola
scriptura that you just did.”
“I have talked to many who accepted that very
definition” Paul insisted.
“No doubt you have, which may explain your
success in confusing folks on the topic, actually. But
sola scriptura does not teach what you are saying it
teaches. Let me get the definition clear before we discuss
its truthfulness. Sola scriptura teaches that the
Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the
Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other,
fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can
refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the
only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means
that all other rules, whether we call them traditions,
confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature
inferior to and subject to correction by, the
Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no
equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because
it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies
the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be
of the highest authority. So as you can see, your definition
does not correspond well to the actual doctrine.”
Roger turned from Paul to the others in the
room and asked, “Is that not what I have preached from the
pulpit and in this very classroom all along?” They nodded in
agreement.
“Well, OK” Paul said as he attempted to recover
the initiative. “We can use that more specific definition, if
you wish. The fact remains that it is a human tradition, not
a biblical teaching, and it was unknown before Martin
Luther...or at least Jan Hus.”
“Which of those two erroneous statements would
you like to deal with first?” I asked.
Paul seemed taken aback by my direct question.
“I mean, shall we demonstrate that the doctrine
is biblical first, or demonstrate that it was taught and
preached long before Jan Hus met his death at the hands of the
Roman Church at the Council of Constance?”
“You are prepared to mount a historical defense
of sola scriptura?” Paul asked, almost incredulously.
“I see you have not read Goode or Whitaker or
Salmon or Webster and King” I said, smiling. “Yes, I surely
am. But I think it better if we begin with the biblical issue
first. You said the doctrine is unbiblical, correct?”
Paul again looked a little dazed at the turn of
events, but pressed bravely on. “Yes, I said it is
unbiblical. The Scriptures teach us to hold to the traditions
we were taught, whether by word of mouth or letter from the
apostles, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and Jesus bound men under
extra-biblical authority in Matthew 23:1-3, as well, referring
to a non-biblical tradition, the “seat of Moses.”
“So are you admitting that your proof against
sola scriptura is found primarily in your positive
assertion of sola ecclesia?”
“I’m sorry, sola ecclesia?” he replied
quizzically.
“Yes, the other position being presented here
this evening, Rome’s position. The idea that the church,
specifically, the Magisterium, headed by the Pope, is the
final and infallible authority in all things.”
“Gracious” Paul laughed, “we don’t believe
that!”
“Oh?” I replied. “I thought I just heard you
defending that idea, or at least getting ready to. But I
think you do, indeed, believe that, and in fact, I think you
will confirm that when I ask a few simple questions. First,
do you believe the Roman Church infallibly defines the
extent of Scripture, i.e., the canon?”
“Yes, of course, I was going to be getting to
that eventually.”
“I’m sure you were, and I look forward to
that. And does not the Roman Church have the ability to
infallibly interpret the meaning of the text of
Scripture?”
“Well, I’d prefer we refer to the Catholic
Church, not the ‘Roman Church,’ and yes, Christ gave that
authority to His Church.”
“I’m sure you would prefer that, but I refer to
the church that is centered in Rome, headed by the bishop of a
single city, Rome, and hence, that is the Roman, not the
Catholic, Church. Be that as it may, you have now affirmed
that Rome can infallibly define the extent of Scripture
and the meaning of Scripture, and is it not likewise
true that Rome claims the infallible ability to define both
the extent of ‘tradition’ as well as the meaning
of ‘tradition’?”
“Yes, that is true as well, since in reality,
Scripture is just tradition written. It is the written
portion of the Word of God.”
“OK, so please tell me: if Rome determines the
extent of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ and the
meaning of both Scripture and ‘tradition,’ how can she
logically be subservient to two things that she in fact
defines and interprets?”
Paul seemed taken aback. “Well, that’s an
interesting way to put it, but surely you realize we do not
put it that way.”
“Of course, but that is what sola ecclesia
is all about: the Church as the final authority in all
things. That is the position you hold, if you are a faithful
defender of the orthodox Roman Catholic claims to infallible
teaching authority. And that is what I meant when I said your
citations from Scripture were showing me that you attack
sola scriptura so as to establish sola ecclesia.
It is vital that everyone see that there are two
positions being presented, and that the standard of proof
demanded for one side be demanded of the other as well.”
“I’m sorry, but how did my noting 2
Thessalonians 2 and Matthew 23 lead you to that conclusion?”
“Two things: this isn’t the first time I’ve
spoken to a Roman Catholic apologist on this topic, and I know
where you are going” I said with a smile. “Second, the only
meaningful interpretations of either of those two passages you
could possibly offer that is relevant to your reason for being
here this evening both require us to embrace an infallible
teaching authority in a church--the Roman Church, of course--so
you seem to be teaching that the Bible, rather than teaching
sola scriptura, teaches sola ecclesia. That
means you’ll need to meet the same level of proof that I must
meet, as you are presenting a positive position, just as I
am.”
Paul chuckled uneasily. “No, no, I’m not
presenting anything like that, really....”
“Oh? Let me see if that’s true: you cite
Matthew 23 to imply that the ‘seat of Moses’ mentioned there
is not only an extra-biblical tradition, passed down outside
of Scripture, as it is never mentioned in the Old Testament,
but you also will tell us that Jesus binds men to this
non-biblical authority, hence establishing, or so it is
assumed, a precedent for your own extra-biblical traditions
having divine authority. Correct?”
“Basically, yes; it shows that Jesus did not
function on the basis of sola scriptura.”
“Which begs the question, of course, since
sola scriptura refers to a period of time when the
scriptura exists and when revelation is not being given,
i.e., the normative state of the church as she exists after
the apostles of the Lord have passed from the scene. But your
problem is this: even if we were to assume, against the best
evidence, that the idea of ‘Moses’ seat’ came from, say,
Moses, you now have to explain how it is that the Jewish
‘magisterium’ could infallibly pass on that tradition, but
fallibly pass on the Corban rule Jesus attacked in Mark
7:1-13? They claimed divine authority for that
tradition as well--a tradition the Lord Jesus subjected to
Scriptural correction. But even beyond this problem (all of
which assumes many erroneous things about ‘Moses’ seat’ in the
first place), the implicit assertion being made on your part
is that if there existed an external authority that could pass
on such a binding tradition then, there must be one
today as well, and almost magically, that authority is
assumed to be held by the modern Roman Catholic hierarchy.
That’s a bit of a tortured path, but that is the argument, is
it not?”
“You have read something more than Jack Chick,
obviously.”
“Indeed I have. And the only way you can
sustain your assumed understanding of Matthew 23 is to
implicitly assume sola ecclesia. The same is true of 2
Thessalonians 2:15, at least, if you are using it with any
level of consistency.”
“That is the most troubling passage to me” said
the husband. Paul almost looked embarrassed at the comment.
“I can see why, if the passage is presented
without any meaningful context” I said, turning to the
couple. “But in reality, this passage is in no way supportive
of Rome’s use of it. Let me explain.”
“Well, I would like to point out...” Paul began.
“No, let’s let the Scripture speak first, Paul”
Roger insisted.
“Let me guess what you have heard,” I said to
the couple. “This passage is normally cited in the context of
insisting that there is more to God’s revelation than ‘just’
Scripture. In fact, it is normally used to prove that this is
a command that we Protestants are refusing to obey.”
“Yes, that’s exactly how it has been presented
to us.”
Paul looked nervously at his open Bible.
“Indeed, and it is a command. The errant
assumption, however, is that this passage is talking about
written ‘tradition,’ that being Scripture, and then some kind
of ‘oral tradition,’ that being...well, we normally are not told
exactly what that is, but it sounds vague enough to
cover whatever Rome has in mind.” A general chuckle went
around the room. “But just a few observations show us just
how far off base this use of the passage is. First, the
implicit assumption in the Roman use of this verse is that the
substance of this ‘oral tradition’ differs from that in
the written tradition. However, upon what basis are we to
make this assumption? What is more, Roman Catholic apologists
who hold to the ‘material sufficiency view’...” I turned to Paul
quickly and asked, “Do you hold to the partim-partim
view or to ‘material sufficiency’?”
“Material sufficiency” he replied in a rather
less than excited voice.
“OK, those who hold to material sufficiency,
the idea that all of God’s revelation is at least implicitly
contained in Scripture, really have no reason to cite this, as
they are hesitant to affirm that Paul actually passed on
orally any kind of specific non-biblical tradition. That is,
no apologist worth his salt will try to defend the idea that
Paul actually taught the Thessalonians such things as the
Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility, both dogmas
based quite fully on ‘tradition.’ So there really is no
reason to cite the passage unless you hold to the older
partim-partim view that said that part of God’s
revelation is found in Scripture and part in ‘oral
tradition.’
“What do you mean, ‘older’?” one asked.
“Rome is hardly united on its view of
tradition, of course. Even among conservative apologists,
opinions vary widely as to just what ‘tradition’ is. You
can’t get an infallible definition, actually, which I find
ultimately ironic, when you think about it. What’s more, the
older view, championed by Rome especially after the
Reformation, requires far too much of Rome’s proponents on a
historical level, especially in the modern period, where Rome
has elevated to the position of dogma beliefs simply unheard
of amongst the early Christians. Anyway, back to 2
Thessalonians 2:15. Obviously, Paul was not saying, ‘Hold to
Scripture and some oral component.’ In context, his meaning
is much simpler. When you read the preceding verses, and take
into account the context, Paul’s meaning is simple. Paul had
preached the gospel to the Thessalonians in person. He was
now writing to them. He has just noted the gospel, and he is
saying, ‘Hold to the body of teaching, i.e., the gospel, that
I have delivered to you, both in person and by letter.’ The
letter, of course, was what we call 1 Thessalonians. The
content is the gospel. We are to hold to the faith, the
gospel of Jesus Christ, which the Thessalonian believers were
privileged to learn, at that unique time of apostolic
ministry, both from an apostle (Paul), and from a letter
directly from him. Note even how Paul uses the same term,
which we translate, ‘hold fast,’ in 1 Corinthians 16:13, ‘Be
on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be
strong.’ Were you aware of these facts concerning the passage
under consideration?”
“Honestly, no. None of this was mentioned in
the literature we read, the tapes that were given to us, or in
the conversations we have had.”
I turned suddenly to Paul and said, “Paul, has
Rome infallibly defined the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:15,
or given to you an infallible definition of what ‘tradition’
is?”
Paul seemed surprised at the sudden spotlight.
“Well, that’s a very large and complex subject.....”
“Surely it is, but did you inform these dear
folks of that when you used that verse to get them to begin to
question the sufficiency of God’s holy Word?”
There was a deathly silence. “I didn’t feel it
necessary to go into such detail, no.”
“Even when you knew admitting the confusion
that exists in Rome about the topic would surely undercut the
very attempt you were making to convince them of the necessity
of abandoning their belief in the sufficiency of Scripture and
embracing the alleged sufficiency of Rome? I find that
disingenuous at the very best, don’t you?”
“You don’t have to get offensive” Paul said.
“Deceiving God’s people is offensive to me,
sir, and dishonestly undercutting the confidence of the saints
in the inspired Word of God is too. So you are admitting you
knew of these issues, and yet allowed these fine people to
remain in ignorance of them?”
“Well, I can see this was not a very good idea”
Paul said as he closed his Bible with a thump.
“Did you ever see Rocky V, Paul” I asked with a
smile. He just looked at me, so I continued, “Remember that
line, ‘I didn’t hear the bell?’ I’m not quite finished yet.
I haven’t gotten to the positive evidence drawn from the
nature of Scripture as Paul presents it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
I haven’t addressed Jesus’ teaching on the relationship of any
and all traditions--even allegedly divine and inspired
traditions--to Scripture. And remember, I haven’t even started
on the historical material yet.”
“Yes, well, you may wish to continue with those
topics” Paul said as he slipped his Bible into his bookbag,
“but I really don’t think this is the best forum for
continuing this. I sense a strong spirit of anger in you, and
I just don’t think it is wise to continue this here.”
“A strong spirit of anger? I see! Do forgive
my zeal for the truth as well as the honor of God’s Word! I
believe my questions are quite direct and to the point. If
you were aware of the fact that you were only offering your
own personal, and fallible, opinion of the meaning of the
verse, and that the system to which you were seeking to win
these folks does not, in fact, even give you an infallible
definition of what this alleged ‘tradition’ as you interpret
it contained or even still contains, how could you, in good
conscience, not make that clear? Surely you realize that your
appeal to the alleged ‘certainty’ of Rome would evaporate in
the light of such a revelation, would it not?”
“But you have nothing but your own fallible
interpretation of the passage yourself, sir!” Paul shot back.
“At least I have the consistent teaching of Christ’s Church
for two thousand years behind me!"
“Two thousand years? You have a two thousand
year old basis for interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2:15 outside
of its own context, and reading into it a meaning that is
simply anachronistic, to the point where you can use it to
teach that such dogmas as Papal Infallibility and the
Immaculate Conception were actually taught by Paul to the
Thessalonians?”
“No, no, you need to understand the development
of doctrine....”
“Indeed! So if those dogmas only ‘developed’
long after Paul’s ministry to the Thessalonians, then it
follows that you would not defend that Paul actually taught
those as a matter of doctrine or tradition to the people in
Thessalonica, correct?”
“The analogy of an acorn and the mature tree
has been used, of course.”
“It surely has, but I am correct that you are
admitting Paul did not teach such developed dogmas and
doctrines to the Thessalonians, did he?”
“I don’t believe Paul specifically taught those
developed dogmas to the Thessalonians, no.”
“In fact, can you give me a single word Paul
taught the Thessalonians in this ‘oral tradition’ you attempt
to identify in this passage?”
“A single word? Well, I’m sure he taught about
the structure of the church and apostolic authority and....”
“Has Rome infallibly defined a single word Paul
taught to the Thessalonians, or to anyone for that
matter, that is not found in Scripture?”
Paul paused for a moment. “Not to my
knowledge.”
I turned to the family again. “In your
listening to all the tapes that were given to you, and reading
the books, and in having discussions--were you ever told that
Rome cannot tell you a single word Paul allegedly taught in
this ‘oral tradition’ in 2 Thessalonians 2:15?”
The man spoke up, “No, certainly not. I
understood them to be claiming that this oral tradition
continues to exist in the church today, and is in possession
of the Magisterium. But I was troubled by the fact that I
never heard any specific discussion of what this tradition
actually said, nor was I given any way of really finding out,
outside of simply being told to believe something on the basis
of the teaching of the Church.”
“Indeed” I replied, “the appeal to alleged
certainty by simply signing your allegiance over to Rome is
very attractive to many, until you start examining the reality
of the claim, anyway. Paul, let me ask: did you challenge
these fine folks with the standard line, ‘How do you know
Matthew wrote Matthew?’ Did you use the ‘canon argument’ with
them?”
“Of course, as such is one of the great
unanswerable questions for Protestants.”
“Indeed! Let me ask, how do you know Matthew
wrote Matthew, Paul?”
He smiled and said, “Surely you know. Christ
gave us the Church to answer such questions. I know Matthew
wrote Matthew because the Church tells me so.”
I sat forward and pulled out a piece of paper.
“Is that why, in 1955, the Roman Pontifical Biblical
Commission granted complete freedom to Roman Catholics to
believe Matthew did, or did not, write Matthew?” I
slid the paper containing the quotation from Roman Catholic
scholar Raymond Brown in his book, The Birth of the Messiah
(1993, pp. 45-46) across to Paul, who scanned the text. “So,
Paul, do you now know that Matthew wrote Matthew, and
if so, how?”
Paul sat silently. Finally he spoke, “I had
never heard anyone address this before. I don’t know what to
say.”
“OK, well let’s pick up a few other elements of
that ‘certainty’ argument. You are a convert to Rome,
correct?”
“Yes.”
“And when you chose to embrace Rome’s
authority, you had other choices you could make, did you not?”
“I’m not sure what you mean by ‘other
choices.’ My studies did not lead me to believe that there
was any other church that claims the authority of Rome with
the historical basis of Rome.”
“You studied the claims of Mormonism, for
example?”
“No, no I did not. Mormonism is not even a
Christian religion.”
“I agree, but Mormons say otherwise, and once a
person accepts the ultimate authority of the LDS prophet, they
have no choice but to believe themselves correct as well. My
point is that there are plenty of groups out there that will
offer you an ultimate authority, are there not? And when you
chose Rome, was not your choice a fallible choice?”
“Well, I am surely not in and of myself
infallible” Paul replied.
“Neither am I. Such is the human condition
after the fall. So you admit, that first choice was a
fallible one, right?”
“Well, yes."
“So, all the decisions that are made for you
after that initial choice cannot be any more certain, can
they? I mean, if you were wrong to choose Rome--if her claims
are shown to be unbiblical and a-historical, her exegesis
errant--all the claims of infallible certainty she might
provide you are in fact worthless, are they not? You would
agree with me that the allegedly divine authority claimed by
the LDS prophet is, in fact, anything but divine, and yet a
Mormon who accepts his teaching as his ultimate authority
might well claim absolute certainty that what he teaches is
correct. If the basis of such claims of absolute authority
cannot be examined, we have no basis for knowing truth at all,
just competing leaders or groups saying, ‘No, I am right,
because I say so.’ So, your claimed certainty regarding the
canon is no more certain than the authority claims of Rome
itself, which are, obviously, subject to all sorts of counter
argumentation.”
“That hardly serves you very well to point that
out, as you claim no infallible authority to define for you
the canon in the first place.”
“But you see, Paul, all Rome has done is move
the real question back one step. Then she innocently wipes
away the evidence of the trick left in the sand, and hums a
nice Ave Maria as if nothing has happened. When I deal with
canon issues, I wrestle directly with the nature of the canon,
which flows from the nature of inspiration, as well as the
historical realities through which God led His people to
recognize the extent of His work of inspiration. You cannot
honestly deal with the historical matters, since your ultimate
authority has already told you what to believe on the topic.
That is why debating the canon with Roman Catholics always
boils down to an authority claim on Rome’s part. I know, as I
have done it many times. I will present evidence from Jewish
sources, from the New Testament, and then from all those
leading early Fathers, like Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, and
Jerome, through even Pope Gregory the Great, all the way up to
the time of the Reformation--who rejected the Apocryphal books
that were dogmatically canonized in April of 1546 at the
Council of Trent....”
“They were accepted by the councils of Carthage
and Hippo long before.”
“Of course, but those were provincial councils,
were they not, and hence not dogmatically binding, right?”
“Well, yes.”
“OK, then, I will present all this historical
material, and when we dig through all the rest of the
verbiage, the final argument offered by Rome will be, ‘Our
canon is correct because we say so.’ At least when I
deal with canon issues, I can do so by going directly to the
source documents themselves. I do not have to believe that a
group of men in a little town in Italy a millennium and a half
after the birth of Christ were somehow divinely inspired to
work through all the issues and come to a final and infallible
decision. In fact, I honestly doubt anyone of the members of
the Council of Trent were in any position to discuss the
matter with near the ability we can do so today, given the
state of research into the topic at the time. Your acceptance
of their decision is not based upon the facts of history
but upon your acceptance of Rome’s authority, period.”
By this time the couple who had been looking
into Catholicism could clearly see where they had been led off
the straight and narrow. The husband spoke, “Paul, we would
like to talk some more with Pastor Roger. You know we
struggled to articulate what we believed about sola
scriptura, and what we have heard tonight has surely
impacted much of what we have discussed over the past few
weeks. In fact, to be honest, Paul, the constant refrain of
the converts we listened to in those tapes has been fully
answered already this evening. Not once did I hear any
serious interaction on the part of the converts--even the
high-powered ones who are always on EWTN--with this kind of
information. Surely at least some of them know about this
stuff. Why don’t they talk about it?”
Paul picked up his book bag and nodded toward
the woman who had already left the fellowship. “I will surely
allow you to speak privately with your elders. Please feel
free to contact me if you would like to continue our
discussions. Good evening gentlemen.”
The woman who had been actively proselytizing
the couple left with Paul, but she looked shaken, even
embarrassed. Roger and I spent the rest of the evening
expanding upon the conversation, opening the Scriptures and
their testimony to their own sufficiency. I gave them a copy
of the newly published work, Holy Scripture, the Ground and
Pillar of Our Faith, all three volumes, and invited them
to read it carefully and prayerfully. They seemed genuinely
thankful for the effort that had been expended in their
behalf, and expressed a feeling of having been “rescued”
before making a very major mistake.
Epilogue
No, this article does not exploit a real
situation just to make a point. The story is fictitious: but
only slightly. It is based upon far, far too many real life
experiences to be real fiction. It bears far too much
resemblance to real life. And far too many godly pastors know
exactly what I’m talking about.
How many such situations end up in the happy
restoration of such a couple? It is hard to say. Surely the
door still swings very one-sidedly away from Rome as
far as conversions go. Some estimate that amongst Hispanics
alone more than a million people have left Rome for some kind
of Protestant or evangelical church. No matter how certain
Roman apologists inflate the numbers, a million is far beyond
their capacity. But by highlighting those who do convert,
they create an appearance of a tidal wave. And for some
reason, when those converts speak out, people listen
There is no gospel preaching when sola
scriptura is compromised. The sufficiency of Scripture is
always the target of every false teacher. The elders in the
churches must be prepared to define and defend this
fundamental truth. And more than this, they must be able to
do so with God-borne passion. Let us pray that God
will bless His people with a deep and abiding love for His
truth, and the desire to press this truth boldly in the face
of those who oppose it.
----James White
|
