Article 6: Of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures for Salvation Part 1

If it is the case that the Bible is the sole infallible source of special revelation, does it not follow that an enumeration of which books are part of the canon, and which are not, is not infallible in that such enumeration is not contained in the Bible?  Is not the very existence of a New Testament canon open to question for the same reason?  These are questions that have always puzzled me about the evangelical position.

Silver Lake Romanist,

You are correct. The position could best be articulated: The New Testament is “fallible collection of infallible books”.

But to believe that the collection is fallible does not at all imply that the church has in fact erred. The criteria by which the canon was recieved at Nicea (apostolicity, consistency, etc…) were valid and by the time of the Council only a few books remained in question. The vast majority had been known to be apostolic since the days of the apostles. Evangelicals do not dispute the NT canon and agree with Roman Catholics that the church did not err in her reception of these documents as divinely inspired and infallible in keeping with the promises of Christ to his disciples recorded in John 14-16 despite Luther’s short lived doubt regarding the book of James

Here is how the LCMS looks at Sola Scriptura:  “The Latin expression “sola scriptura” refers to the authority of the Holy Scriptures to serve as the sole norm for all that is taught and confessed in the church.”  This is a slightly different emphasis.  The Scriptures are the “norming norm”.  We must judge everything the church teaches and confesses by comparing it to the Scriptures.  If the teaching is contrary to clear Scripture it must be rejected no matter who in the church confesses or teaches it.  There will be no “revelation of the Holy Spirit” in any form outside the Scriptures that will contradict the Scriptures, or will be binding on men’s consciences.

As far as the canon is concerned - it is closed since only the early church was in a position to confess what books are authentic and which are not.  We cannot judge that topic 2000 years removed from the writings.

And even Luther was wrong from time to time (what heresy for a Lutheran to admit)!

Matt,
This is great !  Thanks.  But really, with the new baby and all, when do you have time for this and a parish?  Did you give up sleeping? 

Best Wishes!!

4:00am every morning I get up…that’s how.

Matt+, what happens if we later discover another text I am speaking directly of Nag Hammadi.  What if our digs in Eqypt or Syria or Greece uncover texts that were not available to those who compiled the Canon?  Would the Gospel of Thomas been included is they had known of its existence?  If those who set the canon had the tools of modern scholarship would they have included all the books today considered canonical?  Could the church re-address the canon issue and determine a different one.  Since the church set it in the first place, is there any reason why it can’t review it and change its mind?

No EmilyH because Thomas is 1. inconsistent and at odds with the known apostolic books (thus not meeting one of the primary criteria for inclusion) and 2. almost certainly not apostolic. It is most reasobly dated to 200ad.

As for the books that currently comprise the canon all are either apostolic in origin or dateable to within the apostolic period and none contradict the known apostolic books, so while theoretically such a reconisderation is possible, historically the collection is valid.

[The] Bible itself is the only infallible source of special revelation.

There are several levels on which to approach this, apart from the canonical list question proposed by the Romanist.

First, although the Bible is infallible, we who read it are not. That is to say, our interpretation of what the Bible means must always be examined. Here, even Reason and Tradition are weighty concerns to bring to bear on what we think the Bible actually means by what it actually says. Without careful study of its original meaning, any translation of the original text into a modern language is fraught with danger.

(Much of the Bible, however, is beyond dispute, e.g., its prohibition on homosexual behavior. No serious Bible scholar disputes that homosexual behavior is proscribed. Instead, we hear arguments that the Bible is either 1: mistaken, or 2: does not apply to us.)

Second,  there is dispute (or at least varied evidence) of what the original text of Bible actually was. Here, Tradition is still brought to bear by a holdout remnant that cling to the “Majority Text” of the New Testament, that is, the Greek text that is the descendant of that used by the Byzantine branch of the Christian Church. The NKJV is a product of this view. Against this view, Reason is brought to bear to bring in consideration of newly discovered (that is, discovered in the last two centuries) ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, at least one of which may have been transcribed directly from the author’s original. Reason is used to select from these manuscripts the text most likely to have been found in the original, resulting in what is known as the Greek “Eclectic Text.” Most modern translations are a product of this second view. Many of the same type of considerations also apply to the text of the Old Testament.

It has been said that none of the (seriously considered) variations in these ancient manuscripts affect Christian doctrine or practice. Others are not so assured.

The 39 articles were written before most of these developments had come into consideration. Is its language, therefore, inadequate to our times? I think not. Nevertheless, I offer here the statement on scripture required of any who would want to be faculty at the institution where I gained my degrees:

We hold Holy Scripture to be:

1.  Inspired: By this we mean that Holy Scripture is inbreathed by the Holy Spirit, and that, though written in the words of humans in history, is nevertheless God’s witness to Himself.

2.  Authoritative: By this we mean that Holy Scripture, as the Word of God, is to be believed in all it affirms and obeyed in all it requires.

3.  Infallible: By this we mean that Holy Scripture as the standard for faith and practice is completely trustworthy.

4.  Inerrant: By this we mean that Holy Scripture speaks the truth and is therefore free from error, falsehood, and deceit in all it affirms and teaches.

.
...on leave from the Briar Patch,

“First, although the Bible is infallible, we who read it are not. That is to say, our interpretation of what the Bible means must always be examined.”

And yet the assumption behind Abraham’s teaching in Luke 16 is that not only has God communicated infallibly, but that he has communicated in such a way that any who read the scriptures will be able to discern the way to salvation. They are sufficient not just in their communication but in their reception to bring us to the knowledge of salvation.

As for the many thousands of various manuscripts, if course infallibility is located in the autographa and yet no essential doctrine is touched by the very minor deviations in the manuscript evidence for the text of the OT or NT.

First and foremost, I was trained as an historian.  Can you tell me exactly what you mean by “apostolic” and how a text is proved to be so?  Is the proof that which is commonly considered historical or scientific proof of dating or from the internal evidence of the documents themselves?

Apostolic means that it can be reliably dated to within the lifespan of the apostles, within the first century. Thomas cannot and, even if it could, its contents are so at odds with the known apostolic books: the Pauline corpus, the gospels, James, etc…that it is obviously authored by gnostic Christian heretics.

“First, although the Bible is infallible, we who read it are not. That is to say, our interpretation of what the Bible means must always be examined.”

“And yet the assumption behind Abraham’s teaching in Luke 16 is that not only has God communicated infallibly, but that he has communicated in such a way that any who read the scriptures will be able to discern the way to salvation. They are sufficient not just in their communication but in their reception to bring us to the knowledge of salvation”

How do we explain the many divergent and divisive interpretations (I don’t mean the patently loony ones) that have resulted in everything from fights to starting new denominations etc?  Seems to me that SOMEONE would have to be wrong for this to happen, that the reception is off somewhere.

To say that the bible communicates clearly enough so as to be sufficient for salvation is NOT to say that all contained within the canon is 100% clear. It is to say that what is necessary to be saved is communicated clearly.

Emily H,
Timothy Paul Jones addresses your very question in his book Misquoting Truth.  He talks about how there was always a memorized oral core history that accompanied writings to which early church leaders looked to in order to verify the validity and veracity of any writings that claimed apostolic authority.  It was fairly uniform, so even in far-flung parts of the Roman Empire, documents that circulated were accepted or rejected as Scripture for similar reasons.  The possibility of “new discoveries” is remote, and if those documents had been recognized or accepted as Scripture, those documents would have been preserved and continued in use in a Christian community somewhere.  That the only true current discord is in relation to the Apocrypha, not the New Testament, is telling in this regard.

Matt,

As you know, you’ve opened a discussion with this one that will bring in several points of view. I’ll not share my own view here, but I will say that there is something that demands your consideration in this matter…

There is a view of “Sola Scriptura” that is allowed - and even widely held by some - in the Roman Catholic Church. I always thought that the “material sufficiency” view of Scripture was interesting.

Matt, please note that the view of “Sola Scriptura” you outline above seems to addressed below. Someone is using a “straw man” argument because one does not yet fully understand the teaching of the other. So, Matt, please clarify.

Please read this article from a well-klnow source for Roman Catholic apologetics:

MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY
By JAMES AKIN

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Protestants call the idea that Scripture is clear the perspicuity of Scripture. Their doctrine of sola scriptura combines the perspicuity of Scripture with the claim that Scripture contains all the theological data we need.

It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency, as has been done by such well-known Catholic theologians as John Henry Newman, Walter Kaspar, George Tarvard, Henri de Lubac, Matthias Scheeben, Michael Schmaus, and Joseph Ratzinger.

French theologian Yves Congar states, “[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians.” . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, `All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.’ .. `Written’ and `unwritten’ indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge” (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414).

This is important for a discussion of sola scriptura because many Protestants attempt to prove their doctrine by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. That is a move which does no good because a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. In the debate James White apparently failed to grasp this point and was unable to come up with answers to the charge that his arguments were geared only toward proving material sufficiency.

From “This Rock” (Vol. 4, num. 10; Oct. 1993)
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

Bowing his and seeking to walk in truth the…
Simple Path

Hope,
Enter human nature into the interpretation/denominational equation.  Here are your options, 1) both are right but misunderstand each other, 2) both are wrong, 3) one is right and one is wrong, 4) both have parts of the whole truth but think they have the whole truth, or 5) one has a part, while the other is either totally right or wrong.  Then add personal/personality conflicts to the mix.  As you can see, the number of denominations and interpretations escalates from there.  In all cases, lack of both charity and humility exacerbate a disagreement into a divisive conflict.  So we need to always be prayerful theologians who seek clarity, debate in a spirit of love, and be willing to concede a point when wrong.

The is the first time I have taken the time to read what Matt has been posting on this range of subjects ... found it wonderful for lack of another word ... and hooked ... looking forward to more of his words.

Matt,

To clarify what I was saying…

It looks on first read that you are describing Sola Scriptura in a material sufficiency sense, rather than a formal sufficiency sense.

I’ll go ahead and share this…

I believe that at the very least, those Anglican who support a formal sufficiency view of Sola Scriptura cannot condemn - on the basis of their own self-defined standard - those Anglican who accept a material sufficiency view of Sola Scriptura.

Simple Path

Simple Path,

the article is something of a misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. To posit the formal sufficiency of the scriptures in all essential or salvific matters is not to posit the perspicuity of the scriptures in all matters.

Nor does it necessitate the following:

“In order to prove sola scriptura a Protestant must prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it.”

That is a huge overstatement. First no protestant Reformer ever suggested reading or studying the scriptures apart from tradition of the Church, they simply noted that the tradition is fallible and thus must sit under not stand over the scriptures.

2nd, no reformer would say that ALL scripture is so clear that NO outside info is necessary. They would say that the bible contains all that is necessary for salvation and that the Word of God is sufficiently clear so that one who has access to it can gain knowledge of salvation through it.

Matt,

I shall think on this and write more later. The matter is still unclear.

In the mean time, there is much written on this issue:

http://users.adelphia.net/~markfischer/G22. Chapter Thirteen.pdf

http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2252

In the mean time, it still seems to me, then, that your view of Sola Scriptura is at least tolerant of a material sufficiency approach.

Simple Path

Simple,
I don’t think the Akin quote you gave correctly identifies the Protestant position, claiming Protestants believe the perspicuity of Scripture as being wholly within Scripture.  Let’s use the material and formal sufficiency distinctions mentioned.  Mosts Protestants would say the material and formal overlap in Scripture, but do not coincide in entirety.  Where there is overlap, Scripture has perspicuity.  Protestants also note that in precisely those areas of overlap, those are essential to salvation.  Where there is no overlap, reason and tradition take a greater role, but still subordinate to Scripture in that when a teaching found in tradition or developed by reason conflict with Scripture, Scripture wins.

Zoomdaddy, precisely, thank you.

I enjoy these threads - there is much to learn and think about.

Many Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

As an aside for those who don’t know, James White is a protestant apologist whose website may be found here. link   It should provide context for the Akin quote.  Full disclosure.  I have known Dr White for over three years and consider him a friend.

carl

How does it make sense that Protestants claim God’s superintendence over the initial writing of Scripture, thus making it infallible, but then readily admit that there likely has been error (even if not large) in the transmission of that Scripture, such that the original texts are infallible but the texts the church actually has are not.  Is not the second step just as important for having the truth of salvation?  And if there is no claim of infallibility as to the current texts, what is the basis for claiming it as to the originals?

Zoomdaddy - on apostolic pedigree - I second your remarks.  The eminent scholar Jaroslav Pelikan makes the same point in his History of Christian Doctrine series.  Canonicity and apostolicity are “both-and,” not, “which came first?”

Hope,
“Enter human nature into the interpretation/denominational equation.  Here are your options, 1) both are right but misunderstand each other, 2) both are wrong, 3) one is right and one is wrong, 4) both have parts of the whole truth but think they have the whole truth, or 5) one has a part, while the other is either totally right or wrong.  Then add personal/personality conflicts to the mix.  As you can see, the number of denominations and interpretations escalates from there.  In all cases, lack of both charity and humility exacerbate a disagreement into a divisive conflict.  So we need to always be prayerful theologians who seek clarity, debate in a spirit of love, and be willing to concede a point when wrong”

Makes perfect sense to me but that isn’t my troubling point.  It is when people argue that the bible is perfectly clear and anyone can get it without outside help.  But a lot of us need outside help to “get it.”  Which is why “Scripture, reason and tradition” always made me more comfortable than what some of the sola scriptura people seem to be saying.

Aidan, there is a doctrine of the providence of God in providing for the sufficient transmission of the message of salvation that applies to your question. As Matt points out above, the variations in the manuscripts are quite minor in comparison to the truth of the Gospel and the information necessary for salvation. For instance, the information as to the precise location where Jesus’ boat landed when he encountered the demoniac is irrelevant to whether you hold the information you need to be saved.

“How does it make sense that Protestants claim God’s superintendence over the initial writing of Scripture, thus making it infallible, but then readily admit that there likely has been error (even if not large) in the transmission of that Scripture, such that the original texts are infallible but the texts the church actually has are not.”

Aidan, I don’t know of any orthodox scholar anywhere who does not recognise the variations in the manuscripts? And yet because we have so many and because they agree 96 percent of the time we can reconstruct the autographa with a level of certainty that does not apply to almost any other ancient work.

Let’s say there were a chain of 1000 fast food restauraunts built using one set of blue prints.  There are minor differences in some of the buildings but since they were all built from the same blueprint it is possible to recompose the blue-print with such precision that the minor variations would not cause a problem.

As Matt points out, there is more certainty (by at least an order of magnitude) about the original text of the New Testament than there is about any other ancient manuscript. More than 5,000 manuscripts have been discovered, and these are backed up by over 2,000 liturgical texts and thousands of quotations from the early church fathers. We need not doubt the reliability of the text of the Bible as we have it in its essentials.

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

Something tells me this will be a very long thread, and I might even lose friends!  Let’s start here:

Sola Scriptura does not imply that the bible is the “only” source of special revelation. Sola Scriptura is not “solo” Scriptura. Scripture “Alone” does not mean Scripture “Only”.

First let’s notice that the Article does not use the slogan “Scriptura sola.”  It would be better to deal with what the Article itself says, rather than reading it through the grid of a post-Reformation-period slogan.  But since the slogan has been introduced, I must comment on it.  Scriptura sola is an incomplete sentence and means different things in various Protestant traditions.  For Calvinists, the “sola” modifies the word infallible:  the language in Presbyterian ordination vows is   “the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”  That does not mean the only rule of faith and practice, just the only one which holds final authority.  The Lutherans, on the other hand, sometimes ascribe infallibility to their Confessions.  Whereas the Presbyterians have been known to amend the WCF, for Lutherans such a thing would be quite unthinkable. For them, the point of the “sola” is a denial of papal authority or the authority of non-Bibiical tradition.  For Baptists, “Scriptura sola” means exactly that:  Creeds and Confessions are ruled out altogether and sometimes some very weird interpretations are given to the “sola,” such as anything not in the Bible isnt worth knowing.  (This was not always the case with Baptists, as they produced a couple of Confessions in the 17th century, based on WCF.)  It has already been pointed out that RC’s
acknowledge Scriptura sola in a limited sense, a sense very close to what classical Protestants understand.  It is also true that the RC Church insists on “Scriptura sola” quite strictly for liturgical readings, which must mean something!  I don’t find this slogan particularly useful, because of its ambiquity, and am grateful that the Article limits itself to the term “sufficiency.”

Silver Lake Romanist,

You are correct. The position could best be articulated: The New Testament is “fallible collection of infallible books”.

Matt, you surprise me!  Scott Hahn has put out the story, which I would like to see verified, that Dr John Gerstner once admitted that “all we have is a fallible collection of infallible books.”  I believe the classical Calvinist position on infallibility maintains that the process of inspiration includes not only the writing but the collection and preservation of the Scriptures.  My own response to SLR would have been along the lines of: I will tell you how we got an infallible canon of Scripture when you can tell me where to find an infallible list of infallible dogmas.

Concerning textual variants:  it has been estimated that only 15% of the NT Greek Testament falls into this category.  That means all manuscripts agree on the other 85%.  Far more solid than the quartos and folios of Shakespeare’s plays!  Of the 15%, none of the variants is doctrinally very significant; not a single doctrine of the Christian faith hinges on a disputed reading.

Well said, Laurence.

I cannot begin to tell you all how much this has helped me.  Thank you.

Matt writes:

Nevertheless to hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is to believe that while there are other sources of special revelation,

Such as?  Did you mean to say “sources” or “means of transmission”?
Please don’t pull out that rickety three legged stool!

Matt,

...“those who hold to the evangelical position believe that the message is not always received, proclaimed and/or recorded infallibly.”

Although baptised in the Episcopal Church, I was not brought up under its teachings. I became a Christian in my early 20’s and attended a charismatic non-denominational church (the pastor was a cradle Southern Baptist).  I was quite surprised by the above quote.  Had I espoused such a belief back then (30 yrs ago), there would have been an exorcism performed on me at that church! 
Now I have always considered myself an evangelical Christian and am now a confirmed Episcopalian (evangelical and orthodox in my own beliefs—can’t say the same for the church I attend—moderates mostly).  If your definition of “evangelical” is correct, then the landscape has drastically changed over the last 30 years.
  To say that “...the message is not always received, proclaimed and/or recorded infallibly….” is at best a very “slippery slope”, for it allows doubt and error (and ultimately, sin) to creep into what we truly say the we believe. It gives the enemy (the Devil) a foothold which ultimately becomes a stronghold in not only our message to the believer, but it also gives rise to acceptance to what God considers unacceptable in the Kingdom.
So, I must conclude that if what you are saying about the definition of an evangelical is true, then I must not be one.  The evangelical stance on such matters has changed—I must have missed the boat.

Matt, Would not prophecy and visions be considered special revelation? Here is where we apply Sola Scriptura: If such special revelation contradicts scripture, it is ipso facto false.

Note that I gave a link to James White’s web site above in order to let him speak in his own words: http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2252

I also gave a link to a more extended Catholic writing on the issue: http://users.adelphia.net/~markfischer/G22. Chapter Thirteen.pdf

What is more important to this Simple Path guy is this claim: The Catholic articulation of Sola Scriptura understood via a “material sufficiency” sense cannot (at least) be justly condemned by those who hold to Matt’s articulation of Sola Scriptura… and this precisely because there is no part of Scripture that is read with perspicuity (according to what believes about this) that explicitly condemns the view.

I still think it tricky to claim, essentially, that - The Bible can be read with perspicuity where it needs to be, and the only areas where it needs to be are the areas that communicate what is necessary for salvation. I think this is tricky because there are a number of difference of interpretation precisely about what is and is not perspicuitous, and what is and is not necessary for salvation.

I will admit that I cannot, in a simple way, pin down the particulars. The “theory” is simple enough, but the one thing that the vast varieties of Protestants manifestly demonstrate is that many interpretations are possible.

Simply a repentant sinner,
Simple Path

bygrace,

What was communicated infallibly by God to the prophets and apostles and they, through the superintending grace of the Spirit recieved and communicated it infallibly.

But we as subjective human beings are infallible nor can we infallibly recieve any salvation. This is not to say that we can have no certainty, we can and we do. But, certainly, we can also err. The bible cannot and does not. This is why all things must be tested in light of scripture. That has always been the evangelical position.

“Scott Hahn has put out the story, which I would like to see verified, that Dr John Gerstner once admitted that ‘all we have is a fallible collection of infallible books’.”

I have seen that exact quotation attributed to R. C. Sproul.  I have not been able to verify it, but I did find this which he wrote: “... the Protestant view is that the church’s decision regarding what books make up the Canon was a fallible decision.  Being fallible means that it is possible that the church erred in its compilation of the books found in the present Canon of Scripture” (*Sola Scripture! The Protestant position on the Bible, p. 66).

LKW+

1. I introduced the doctrine because I think it is was held by those who authored the Article and thus I did so as what I considered necessary background.

2. I should have said, God also speaks through other sources. I do think God speaks to the church infallibly but the Church hears and proclaims fallibly.

3. Finally, as far as an infallible collection of fallible books, I’ve read the argument in varoous, but I heard it most recently a few mornings ago on RC Sproul’s radio broadcast…by Dr. Sproul affirming it as the only way to think about Nicea.

Sproul was a student and protegee of John Gerstner.  This notion of “a fallible collection” is difficult to reconcile to WCF I.1, “it pleased the Lord, at sundry times and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church ... to commit the same wholly unto writing; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased,” and I.4, “The authority of Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”  Also I.8, “The OT in Hebrew ... and the NT in Greek ... being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical….”  Would “singular care and providence” produce a “fallible collection”?  Gerstner held some quirky notions,
being a supralapsarian and denying the Well-meant offer of the Gospel, and Sproul being vociferously anti-Catholic would be apt to deny the work of the Spirit in the on-going life of the Church through which the Canon emerged. Knee-jerk anti RC’s are apt to wind up with strange positions.  I don’t think they have the last word on Reformed theology at this point.

Matt writes, “1. I introduced the doctrine because I think it is was held by those who authored the Article and thus I did so as what I considered necessary background.”

Matt, “Scriptura sola is not a doctrine, it is a buzz-word which means
different things in different contexts.  If the authors of Article 6 held to it, how do you explain their reticence in citing it?  For that matter, I don’t find it stated with any special force in WCF either.  If you have any evidence that the authors of Article 6 liked this buzzword, please share it with us. 
Let me reiterate the point that Reformation theology should not be read through the grid of anti-Roman polemics of a later (possibly much later) century.  Analogously, the “priesthood of all belivers” is frequently held up in Reformation Day sermons as the third pillar of the Reformation.  Actually, it’s conspicuously missing in WCF and it’s hard to find in 16th century writing.  So please don’t make Article 6 hinge on a dubious buzzword.

Matt,

What I am attempting to say is that every evangelical that I ever met believed the following: “By contrast, God revealed his Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit and superintended, by his Holy Spirit, the composition of their holy writings in such a way that while their various historical settings and personalities are clearly evident in what is written, what they produced is, without error, a true revelation from God.”  They ALSO believed that ALL things must be tested in light of scripture.  I was also taught that if the verse started with the word, ‘therefore’, then I had to read what was before it to know what the ‘therefore’ was there for. It was also imperative that nothing was to be read out of context.
Perhaps the evangelicals that I have known were too influenced by the Roman Catholics (Protestants are a minority here—they even know all about Lent). 
I know that we are fallable—we are human. But my understanding of what you wrote regarding the evangelical view was that they believed ‘the word’ was not necessarily “THE WORD”, but through fallable man, “... the message is not always received, proclaimed and/or recorded infallibly.”

Luther in The Babylonian Capvitity of the Church (1520):

“How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally
priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we
truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry
(ministerium Predigtamt) and consented to by us (nostro
consensu)? If they recognize this they would know that
they have no right to exercise power over us (ius imperii,
in what has not been committed to them) except insofar as
we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a
priestly kingdom.” In this way we are all priests, as many
of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we
call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who
do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is
nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:l: “No
one should regard us as anything else than ministers of
Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God.”

Sounds like 16th Century priesthood of all believers to me!

All Israelites were a nation of priests, so God ordained Aaronic priests to serve His nations of priests.

Simple as that.

LKW+,

Help me see how the WCF texts you cite contradict the notion of a fallible collection of infallible books? They seem to touch on the matter of the inspiration of the books themselves not on the later collection of them.

1.1 deals with God’s inscripturation of his revelation
1.4 actually seems to support the idea of a fallible collection of infallible books.
1.8 again does not seem to speak of the church’s collection of God’s Word, but of God’s care to trasmit his word via the various copies and manuscripts

Bygrace,

I have no idea what you are talking about. I would never deny that all things must be tested in light of his Word? Where did you get the idea?

Those who recieved adn recorded the word did so infallibly.

The Church on the other hand does not which is why she must test her actions and decisions by God’s Word.

Read it again, Harry, and underline this part:

There are indeed priests whom we
call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who
do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is
nothing else than the Ministry.

Can you give us a quote from the Book of Concord?

Matt+, thanks for returning once again to the Articles. What a gift you give to this list.

I don’t see the exact words “priesthood of all believers”, but the concept is there, especially in this section from “A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope”:

68] Here belong the statements of Christ which testify that the keys have been given to the Church, and not merely to certain persons, Matt. 18, 20: Where two or three are gathered together in My name, etc.

69] Lastly, the statement of Peter also confirms this, 1 Pet. 2, 9: Ye are a royal priesthood. These words pertain to the true Church, which certainly has the right to elect and ordain ministers since it alone has the priesthood.

70] And this also a most common custom of the Church testifies. For formerly the people elected pastors and bishops. Then came a bishop, either of that church or a neighboring one, who confirmed tho one elected by the laying on of hands; and ordination was nothing else than such a ratification.

71] Afterwards new ceremonies were added, many of which Dionysius describes. But he is a recent and fictitious author, whoever he may be [this book of Dionysius is a new fiction under a false title], just as the writings of Clement also are spurious [have a false title and have been manufactured by a wicked scoundrel long after Clement]. Then more modern writers added [that the bishop said to those whom he was ordaining]: I give thee the power to sacrifice for the living and the dead. But not even this is in Dionysius.

72] From all these things it is clear that the Church retains the right to elect and ordain ministers. And the wickedness and tyranny of bishops afford cause for schism and discord [therefore, if the bishops either are heretics, or will not ordain suitable persons, the churches are in duty bound before God, according to divine law, to ordain for themselves pastors and ministers. Even though this be now called an irregularity or schism, it should be known that the godless doctrine and tyranny of the bishops is chargeable with it], because Paul, Gal. 1, 7f , enjoins that bishops who teach and defend a godless doctrine and godless services should be regarded as accursed.

LKW+,

I’ll have to dig through some things but I am fairly certain that at least Cramner held to sola scriptura in the same vein as the continental reformers and by 1571 I would assume that it was the accepted position…but again, I’ll have to look.

As for the anti-Roman polemics, wouldn’t many of hte Articles fall within that grid?

Also

Matt,
I made no such statement nor implication that you did not believe that all scripture must be tested in light of His Word.
You stated that, “...those who hold to the evangelical position believe that the message is not always received, proclaimed and/or recorded infallibly.”
My question is, “the message is not always received, proclaimed and/or recorded infallibly” by whom? The Church (corporate)? The Church (body of believers)? Please clarify for me.
I hope you don’t think that I am attacking you, for I am not. I am just trying to understand what you mean by the difference between the evangelical position and the Catholic position.

bygrace

I guess I am not understanding how you can miss what I said here:

“Nevertheless to hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is to believe that while there are other sources of special revelation, Bible itself is the only infallible source of special revelation. While God certainly speaks infallibly every time he speaks and while God certainly speaks to the Church, those who hold to the evangelical position believe that the message is not always received, proclaimed and/or recorded infallibly. By contrast, God revealed his Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit and superintended, by his Holy Spirit, the composition of their holy writings in such a way that while their various historical settings and personalities are clearly evident in what is written, what they produced is, without error, a true revelation from God.”

By that I mean that the church and every other vehicle besides the written scriptures through which God reveals himself and his will is fallible in its reception.

Is not that the evangelical position?

bygrace,

yes, which is why I am confused by your response. I articulated the evangelical position and you seemed to say that I did not and now you seem to say that I am…help me understand your point?

Question for Simple Path:  What book does chapter 13 on the formal and material sufficiency of Scripture belong?  Thanks.

Well, Matt, since you correctly point it out, the Articles are marked
by a great deal of anti-RC polemic.  But I don’t think Article 6 is such a place.  Because that polemic is so violent in later articles, the absence here ought to be all the more striking.  If you wish to believe in “Scriptura sola” in a Sproulean manner, that’s fine.  But this Article does not support you.  That’s why the Puritans re-wrote it.

And in this statement,

“Nevertheless to hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is to believe that while there are other sources of special revelation, Bible itself is the only infallible source of special revelation.

I believe you are confusing general and special revelation.  I would tweak your sentence to read,
“Nevertheless, while God reveals Himself in His created order and other ways sufficiently to make man morally responsible and culpable,
the Bible, infallible and inerrant, is the unique source and depository of His special revelation of saving grace.”

“Nevertheless, while God reveals Himself in His created order and other ways sufficiently to make man morally responsible and culpable, the Bible, infallible and inerrant, is the unique source and depository of His special revelation of saving grace.”

Yes! I’d accept that tweak LKW+.

I am unclear on your “By contrast…” statement. To me, that has ALSO been the evangelical viewpoint. God revealed His Word to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit and by the workings of the Holy Spirit God’s Word was written—infallible and inerrant. So by contrasting the two statements are you saying they disagree?

hmmm….the “by contrast…came after this:

“While God certainly speaks infallibly every time he speaks and while God certainly speaks to the Church, those who hold to the evangelical position believe that the message is not always received, proclaimed and/or recorded infallibly.”

those who hold to the evangelical position believe that the message is not always recieved by the church etc…correctly, but or “by contrast, when God communicated to the apostles and prophets and those who authored the scriptures it was done in such a way that they recieved infallibly.

My compliments to Matt for a fine statement of the evangelical Anglican understanding of the inspiration and sufficiency of Holy Scripture. 

I have just finished reading an essay by Catholic theologian Thomas Guarino on this subject:  “Catholic Reflectxions on Discerning the Truth of Sacred Scripture.”  This article was written for the Evangelicals and Catholic Together volume Your Word is Truth.  Folks who are interested in this topic will find it well worth their time.  They may be surprised to find that “most Catholic theologians accept the phrase sola scriptura; they accept as well the claim that the Bible is the norma normans non normata, the ultimate touchstone for Christian faith.”  Wherein lies the disagreement between evangelicals and Catholics?  The essay is well worth tracking down to find the answer.

“So please don’t make Article 6 hinge on a dubious buzzword.” (L. Wells)

“I am fairly certain that at least Cramner held to sola scriptura in the same vein as the continental reformers and by 1571 I would assume that it was the accepted position ...” (M. Kennedy)

Cranmer may well have done so, but it is not clear whether Article 6 clearly does so, even if its framers did so. Moreover, the genesis of the 39 Articles, the “toning down” many of the more Reformed phrases of the 42 Articles of 1552, the omission of Article 29 in 1563 at the command of the Queen, the restoration of Article 29 in 1571, and, finally, the passage by the same 1571 Convocation that ratified and endorsed all 39 Articles of a canon asserting that the Articles were in agreement with the “Catholic bishops and fathers” of the Early Church and insisting that they be interpreted accordingly—all served to introduce a considerable degree of latitude into the interpretation of the Articles, such that (with the “Royal Declaration” of 1630, which has been prefixed to the Articles in England ever since, and referring back to the 1571 canon about the “Catholic bishops and fathers”) legally and canonically the intentions and beliefs of the Articles’ framers was relegated to an irrelevance, or at least as but one “source of information” that could be trumped (for some) by what the “Catholic bishops and fathers” were deemed to have taught.

Since you bring up the Forty-two Articles, Dr Tighe, here is Article V
(slightly different numbering) of that document:
Holie Scripture conteineth all things necessarie to Saluation: So that whatsoever is neither read therein, nor maie be proued thereby,
although it be somtime received of the faithful, as Godlie, and profitable for an ordre and comeliness: Yeat no manne ought to be constreigned to beleue it, as an article of faith, or repute it requisite to the necessitie of Saluation.

The version in the 42 Articles does not enumerate the Canon or make a pronouncement on the status of the Aprcrypha.  So in this particular slide, the later version is more Reformed (1) in deleting the words I attempted to boldface, and (2) leaving open the matter of the Apocrypha.

Back to “fallible collection of infallible books.”  This comes down, I suppose, to your view of what the canon is and how it was formed.
Was the Canon created by the Church, or was it simply discerned?
Does a certain collection of writings have authority because the Church conferred that authority, or did the Church under the Spirit’s guidance perceive a Divine authority inherent in those writings through inspiration?  If you take the former option, then the Church could have made a mistake (a la Sproul) and is at liberty to correct it (a la Bennison).  If you take the second option then the canonization process itself has to be infallible.  A little something about the Spirit of truth leading you into all truth.  As my philosophy professor was wont to say, “You pays yer money and you takes yer cherce.”
As for those quotes from WCF, let’s concentrate on the third:
““The OT in Hebrew ... and the NT in Greek ... being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical….”  The phrase “singular care and providence” must be given its full weight.  A canonization process even hypothetically subject to error would be extremely insouciant on the part of the God of truth.

This comes down, I suppose, to your view of what the canon is and how it was formed.
Was the Canon created by the Church, or was it simply discerned?

I think you hit the nail on the head.  Roman and Eastern Orthodox lean in the direction of the former.  Protestants the latter.  I think in some ways, both sides have to concede that the truth is probably some combination of the two.  The canon was “created” in that it was formally delineated in the councils of the Church.  But the criteria and process the Church used for deciding on the books reveals a decidedly “discernment”-minded agenda.  The question before them was not, “What books do we want to be in the Bible” it was “Which books are truly biblical and are undeniably God’s Word to govern faith and practice?”

To caricature the two positions ridiculously, Protestants are accused of believing that the Bible dropped out of the sky in one leather bound volume (the Mormon idea of the discovery of a bunch of golden plates is based on this concept), and RCC’s and EO’s are suspected of thinking that a big meeting was held and each book was voted on, one at a time, and any book with 51% support got included.  Obviously, neither view is remotely correct.  The Canon was not hammered out over a lengthy process, like the Chalcedonian formula.  It very gently manifested itself to the believing, worshipping, serving community which is called “Church,” as the sheep heard the Shepherd’s voice and the Spirit led the flock into all truth.  It is important for Protestants to recall that each book of both Testaments was written within the matrix of this community (which has existed since Sinai and probably earlier).  Inspiration did not occur to solitary seers, but to members of this community.  Likewise, the process of gathering and assembling occurred within that same matrix, as the community discerned, under the guidance of the Spirit,  its various needs (liturgical, doctrinal, disciplinary).  This is why two letters to the Corinthians were retained and two more were discarded.  Catholics and EO’s sometimes speak as if the Church conferred Inspiration and authority by mere <i> fiat <>, simply zapping a random collection into a new status.  Bp Bennison’s shocking statement about the church creating the canon is a degenerate version of this view, but it is not too far from what we sometimes read in some very conservative authors.  I recall with horror how a godly seminary professor of mine, Dr John Haddon Leith (rip) explained that the Presbyterian Church had a legal procedure in place for revising the canon—merely by amending the WCF which lists the Canon.  He was quick to say this wasn’t what the Westminster Divines had in mind.  Gerstner and Sproule to the contrary notwithstanding, I firmly reject the notion of a “fallible collection of infallible books.”  This evaporates Biblical authority instantly, as we can (under this view) never be sure that anything belongs in the Canon.  It also sets an arbitrary and artificial limit on inspiration, restricting the work of the Holy Spirit to the mere penmanship of the various books.
Matt, have you abandoned this discussion?

The italics should end after the word “fiat.”  I was being overly fastidious, too correct for someone of my limited computer skills.
Sorry.

The main question for the Reformers to Rome was whether or not the Church needs to submit to Scripture.  Rome at that time flexed its muscles with excommunication, and the Reformers flexed back with sola scriptura among other things.  I think today, the two sides are much closer to agreement than they were in the past, but there are still a lot of nuances, prejudices, and misunderstandings to work through.

Not exactly direct but of interest tangentially.

This past Sunday’s whitehorseinn.org broadcast was on sola scriptura with Mark Noll comin gi to speak on how the RC and Protestant sides on the issue are coming closer together even thouigh people don’t realize it. The topic is under justification but the principles in the how and why are probably pertinent.

Fr Kimel

Question for Simple Path:  What book does chapter 13 on the formal and material sufficiency of Scripture belong?
(From Fr Kimel)

I don’t know.

I found it with a Google search and saw it was clearly very well thought out and researched, so I posted the link.

Let me know if you found out where it is from.

Walking the…
Simple Path

Did anybody notice that Jesus did not ask a New Testiment be written, or even predict it?  He didn’t found a Bible at all.  He founded a Church.  And from the heart of the Church came the Bible.  No Church; no Bible.  According to the Bible, it is the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Other reasons for pause:
  -  Satan quotes Scripture too (Mt 4:5-6).
  -  Peter warns taht there are things in Paul’s letters that are hard to understand, which the ingorant/unstable twist to their own destruction as the do other Scriptures (2 Pet 3:16).
  -  We can be confident that Scruitpure was quoted in the “syunagogues of Satan” (Rev 2:9 and 3:9).
  -  Surely the “doctrines of demons” were proposed using Scripture (1 Tim 4:1-6).
  -  Tradition is also binding (2 Thess 2:15 & 1 Cor 11:2).

Reference an eariler comment about 1 Peter 2 (“You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood), the point that was missed as to what a priest did.  A Rabbi taught;  a priest offered sacrifices.  Although it is clear that we are all to teach in some ways, the royal priesthood refers to making spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5).

Of course the Bible is infallible:  the Bible makes no such claim regarding the New Testiment, but the Church does.

wonderful stuff Benedict.

Ben,

Whether Jesus asked that the NT be written or not is really beside the point. He gave his disciples infallible teaching authority on the night before he died. Thus, the infallibility of the apostolic writings and the writings of those whose ministry was personally attested by the apostles, rest on the promise of Christ.

The church is founded on the teaching of the apostles and prophets appointed by Christ. There is no church apart from them. The Chruch rests on the word, not the word on the Church

Matt, thank you for this very interesting response.  I have two questions.

1.  Would your position be that Christ established an infallible Aspostolic College, but that He did not intend such infallibility to extend to the Apostles’ successors?

2.  Would you maintain that the entire NT was composed during the life of the Apostles?  Many seem to maintain that the Gospel of John, for example, was arranged in its present form in around 90-100 AD.  What does it do to the infallibility of Scripture if the NT in its final form was composed/edited after the death of the last Apostle?

Silver Lake Romanist,

In answer to 1. Yes,

In answer to your 2. Yes, I believe it was. John was, as Ireneaus tells us (quoting papius) quite young when he followed Jesus and would have perhaps been in his eighties in the 90’s. All of the early sources name John as the author of the gospel and there is no reason to question that assumption.

Let us not get too caught up in the human aspect of this equation. God has almost always used fallible men to get His will accomplished (as if there was any other kind-Jesus excluded, of course) and we must never forget the words of Christ as recorded by John and then reiterated by John in His first epistle, that the Holy Spirit will guide believers unto all truth. While this statement is not limited to the recording and then the discerning of the Canon, it certainly takes it in. Also, Peter says that no Scripture is simply mans opinion since the man chosen to record the Sacred Writ was “borne along” by the Holy Spirit; indeed, all scripture is manifestly declared to be “God breathed.” The flawed vessels whom the Almighty used in the canonization process were indeed guided by the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus and the Apostle John said they would be (and make no mistake about it; this same blessed Holy Spirit is at work today in and for every believer, to guide us into all truth as well). When God speaks His word through an eartly vessel, He performs it. God has declared that once His word is spoken, it is forever settled and will never pass away. By the guiding work of the Spirit, God gets His work done-the preservation of His word is no different. The assertion that the Church gave us the Bible is absurd. If anything, from a human standpoint, the Apostle Paul tells us that the Jews gave us the Bible (Romans 3:1,2). God has, through His Spirit, used the church to discern the NT, but that is not the same thing as the Church “giving” us the Bible. The Church, as the pillar and ground of the truth, is to see to it that it is proclaimed accurately and faithfully “from the pulpit” so to speak-no small charge.

BobK,

The promise to “lead into all truth” was specifically given to the twelve, not all believers, and it is in the same context as the promise that the Counselor would call to their minds all that Jesus said and did and that he would take truths from the father and reveal it to them…all of these were specifically given to the apostles not to the Church in general. In 1st John, the promise was that the Holy Spirit would teach believers the truth…there is a big difference between the two texts both in setting/context and in meaning.

The church is founded on the teaching of the apostles and prophets appointed by Christ. There is no church apart from them. The Chruch rests on the word, not the word on the Church

Not quite sure what you are saying here.  The Church rests on the Word (i.e., Christ).  As you point out, the Word appointed those with specific teaching authority.  The Bible shows that that teaching authority was then passed on:  there were successors determined by those who were appointed by Christ…and so on… 

Some of those who were appointed, or their successors, wrote books of the NT as well as teaching orally.  Others, and their successors, were involved in determining which books were read at worship services.  In time, they came to establish a cannon:  accepting some books, but not others. 

ALL of the above rests on the Word who—according to the Bible, established a Church which did all of this.  According to the Bible, it is the Church which Christ founded, and the Church which is the pillar and bulwark of truth.  The Bible is a creation of the Holy Spirit acting through the Church.

The difference, as I see it, is that the apostles received that particular promise as it befits their office. They would be the first to recieve the full knowledge of Gods revelation, and in their teachings and writings, they would actually be part of the foundation upon which the rest of the church was built. In that sense, the apostles occupy a place in the reception of the promise of the Holy Spirits “guiding into all truth” that the rest of the church doesnt have. But it seems that as one reads the farewell discourse, most of what has been spoken to the apostles can be appropriated by-and is meant for-the entire body of Christ as well. A good example of this can be found in 1 Cor. 2:8-3:4. Read as a whole, Paul is stating that the wisdom of God to establish the teachings given to the church universal (through the apostles), and the subsequent ability to discern and make sense out of what was taught is given by the same Holy Spirit, who gives the same ability to receive the truth of God to apostle and church alike[though the church did not receive this ability as the Apostles in their office did] (verses 14-16). The setting, meaning, and impact of the Holy Spirits guidance, inasmuch as the office and mission of the Apostles was foundational and differing from the rest of the church, I understand. But any effort to know Gods mind concerning the things of God without the guidance of the same Holy Spirit is fruitless. *In that sense*, the promise of the Holy Spirits bringing to rememberance what Christ taught (both personally and by way of revelation) to the apostles is valid for the church-we “remember” and make sense of what is written BY those apostles by the same Spirit. What was written in 1 John 2:18-27 attests to that very thing, when John warned against the teachings of apostates; the Holy Spirit would keep them in the truth, and out of error.

It is true that the original Apostles had a special role.  In fact, all orthodox Christians agree that revelation—in the sense of the Bible and Tradition—ended with the death of the last Apostle.

There is a theory that the Holy Spirit guides us INDIVIDUALLY, but does not guide the Church in understanding Scripture: but neither the Bible nor history indicates that. 

The visible, hierarchical, institutional Church continued.  In Acts 1:15-26, Judas (the Apostle) is replaced—“Let is OFFICE another take.”  This is Appalstolic succession.  Lessor offices are created and filled as well.

At every point, both before the death of Christ, and afterwards, action is ALWAYS preceded by commission by Church authority.  The entire NT is crystal clear as to two things:  we are to be profoundly united, and we are not to compromise on the Truth.  But how is that possible?  Acts and the Epistles show us:  through submission to Church authority.  NOT through making personal decisions about the meaning of Scripture, and then dividing up into denominations accordingly.

History also shows that the Holy Spirit does not guide INDIVIDUALS:  or to be more accurate, the Holy Spirit does guide us as individuals, but we don’t listen very well.  These are just a few of the disagreements among Christians who are guided by the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture: 
-  Salvation:  sola fide?  Can you loose your salvation?  How?  Can it be gotten back?  How?  If you are living a life of unusual sin, does that mean that you have the faith that saves? 
-  Baptism:  necessary?  symbolic? for infants? by immersion?
-  Communion:  how important?  What sense, if any, is Christ present?
-  Morality:  abortion?  divorce?  birth control? sex outside of marriage?  drinking?  gambling?  dancing?  movies?
-  Modes of worship and church governance?
-  Spiritual gifts like tongues:  for today?  or manifestation of possible demonic influence?
-  Predestination and free will?
-  Who is a “true Christian”?

And it goes on and on.  Yet we are told that our God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33).  This is simply not tolerated in the Bible, and such disagreements among believing Christians is a scandal that has helped fuel relativism and atheism.  Where Christian division has been the worst (in Europe), there is a spiritual waste land—as we should have expected from Christ’s prayers in John 17.

The Bible NEVER shows disagreement as resulting from honest differences of opinion and an admirable search for the Truth:  it is ALWAYS attributed to sin and Satan. 

Dissension and division are explicitly condemned in versus such as: Rom 2: 8; 1 Cor 1:10-13 and 3:3-4; Tit 3:9-11; Rom 16:17-18; 2 Cor 12:20.

The question posed is whether Scripture is sufficient for salvation.  I agree that it generally is, although we are warned that that is not ALWAYS the case (e.g., 2 Pet 3:16).  But we should love God for his own sake—not just what he can do for us.  And he wants us to be united in a way that is not possible using just Scripture and private judgment.

“There is a theory that the Holy Spirit guides us INDIVIDUALLY, but does not guide the Church in understanding Scripture: but neither the Bible nor history indicates that.”  Depends on what you mean by “church”. The Bible describes the church as the entire body of individual, Holy Spirit indwelt Christians. 1 John 2:18-27 very clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit does guide His church individually in the understanding of scripture. This dovetails perfectly with John 14:16,17 and John 16:13-15, not in the sense that we become Scripture writers, but the Holy Spirit, which abides in us, makes us to understand that which is written, without whom attempting to rightly understand Scripture is fruitless. “The visible, hierarchical, institutional Church continued.  In Acts 1:15-26, Judas (the Apostle) is replaced—“Let is OFFICE another take.” This is Appalstolic succession.  Lessor offices are created and filled as well.”  Judas fell, and HIS office as one of the 12 was filled by Matthias. The office of the twelve died with the twelve. There is no further succession to that office. The remaining offices of overseer and deacon have been filled, and continue to be filled today-appointed by the Holy Spirit working in the lives of consecrated, Spirit-filled servants of Christ throughout the world. By the way; the visible, hierarchical church, according to the Book of Acts, was in Jerusalem. It is never even HINTED at in scripture that there will ever be another city/mother church where such authority will be centralized in this present age. NONE. While different denominations exist, the individual members therein can very well all become one in the Spirit of God-not in the flesh.  Christs true body-those who have been born again through faith in Christ, holding to the Head, are always mystically united in the Holy Spirit AS Christs body. This unity is not perfect, but nothing will be until Christ returns. The rest of your statements are obviously leading to one conclusion: lets all subject ourselves to Rome, and we shall all truly be one and correct about everything. And that is a crock of immense proportions. You are welcome to it.

What I mean by “church” is the what is illustrated in the Bible:  a group of believers who are guided by the Holy Spirit, but who realize that they are also guided by Satan at times.  And so, when they have disputes (such as in Acts 15 and elsewhere) they submit them to a visible hierarchy.

Paul speaks of the office of bishop in 1 Tim 3.  Timothy is a member of the heirarchy, and Paul tells him to “command” and teach (1 Tim 4:11).  So, offices were set up, and filled…and had successors.  Paul told the elders in Ephesus that they are the GARDIANS of the flock (Acts 20:28).  Paul left Titus in Crete to “AMMEND what was defective and APPOINT eleders in every town AS I DIRECTED YOU” (Tit 1:5-9).  The NT is just full of quotes that indicate that the Church has authority—visible authority (e.g., Tit. 1:7-14).  Note, that many of these verses pertain to the authority of those who were not among the original Apostles, and who were part of the visible hierarchy. 

In the Bible, disunity in TEACHINGS is absolutely off the table.  Period!  For example, Jesus lost most of his disciples in John 6—and he let them walk away because they couldn’t accept a very difficult teaching.  There are countless versus on the matter. 

How about a dispute about how we are saved?  (Sound familiar?)  There were STRONG Scriptural reasons for believing that circumcision was necessary (Gen 17:9-14, Ex 4:24-26, and Ex 12:43-49), but “decide and divide” was simply not an option.

Disagreements over doctrine are NEVER treated as:  “Well, you know, we all are guided by the Holy Spirit; but our unity can’t be PERFECT until Christ returns, so, there is really nothing we can do.”  No, failure to accept hierarchial decisions are always viewed as Statnic, and the factious are to be admonished and then shunned (Tit 3:9-11) and promised hell (Rom 2:8).

So, why the obsession about unity of faith, mind, and spirit?  (Acts 4:32, Eph 4:3-5, Phil 1:27-28, and Phil 2:2 to name just a few.)  Because it is foundational to saving souls.  Christ said that a house divided cannot stand, and the inverse of his prayers in John 17 is that the world will NOT know and beleve that the Father sent the Son if we are not profoundly united…and that is exactly what has happened.

That Christians agree that, say, homosexual acts are wrong is not some pie in the sky dream that could never happen until Jesus returns:  it was the case in the Bible.  It was the case throughout Christendom while we were united.

I’m not trying to lead you (or anybody else) anywhere.  None of the above ideas are mine.  But if we can’t learn from what is going on now, from history, and from the Bible—well, we’ll just keep trying the same thing, and getting the same results…lost souls.

By all means, come up with your own solution:  start something in Jeruselm if you think that it will be credible.  I only would have this suggestion:  we now have some 2,000 years experience.  Some theoretical idea that has never yet happened is not likely to be the solution.

Lets start at the beginning. As for your first paragraph and example: the New Testament hadnt been written yet. Most of the Apostles were still alive, so could be consulted (Acts 15), and as a result, a part of the New Covenant Sciptures was written. The same would not be necessary now, with the Apostolic age being past, and the Canon of Scripture complete.  Second paragraph: the offices that the New Testament records for the church are overseers and deacons: PERIOD. In the present church age, that IS the visable authority, and those are the only NT offices. This is illustrated clearly in the Book of Revelation, in Christs letters to the churches. Its obvious that each church was an autonomous body; there was not even a hint at a “first among equals”. These letters were dictated to the last living Apostle, John, NOT to adjudicate anything, but to send Jesus’ message to each autonomous church (Rev. 1:11), to be dealt with by the governing body of elders/overseers in each individual church. The elders WERE the visible authority. As for Pauls authority as an Apostle-it was given Him directly by Jesus Christ Himself (Gal. 1:1) and his Apostleship was attested to by the other Apostles. He appointed Timothy and Titus, not to be some heirarchical Gods, but to appoint men who would occupy the church office of overseer. This is how the leadership in the church was recognized by Paul himself. (Philippians 1:1). From Pauls letter to the Phillippians to Jesus letters to the churches-the visible hierarchy in each church were the elders. After the apostles had died off and the Holy Scriptures were being coalesced, the eldership was the visible, God ordered authority.  As to your third paragraph-disciples leaving Jesus in John 6, or refusing to follow Him had nothing to do with DISUNITY in teachings, it was y a failure to receive them. The same is repeated in John 8 and John 10, and had nothing to do with “disunity of teachings”.  You then write: “Disagreements over doctrine are NEVER treated as:  “Well, you know, we all are guided by the Holy Spirit; but our unity can’t be PERFECT until Christ returns, so, there is really nothing we can do.” No, failure to accept hierarchial decisions are always viewed as Statnic, and the factious are to be admonished and then shunned (Tit 3:9-11) and promised hell (Rom 2:8).”  The shunning, as recorded in Titus 3:9-11 was manifestly in regard to teaching and affirming things which were contrary to sound doctrine, not “failure to accept hierarchial decisions” per se. Read verse 11 in conjunction with verse 10. The church elders-who were the church heirarchy-were to administer church discipline. False teachers were never to be tolerated (Rev. 2:14-16; 18-23), and it was the job of the elder to put a stop to it (Titus 1:5-11).  As for the last four paragraphs, since God left no single overreaching ecclesiastical church authority, other than elders/deacons over local bodies, any togetherness these bodies had were-and are-to be a result of the churches heeding the Third Person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit-not a centralized mother church-gives to individual Spirit filled Christians gifts of administration, eldership/pastoring, evangelists, prophets, and a host of other giftings. This is not merely theology. The Third Person of the Trinity was manifestly sent by Jesus to take His place here on earth (John 16:6-15 and elsewhere). There is no more of a guarentee of perfection in understanding amongst every last Christian today about every last jot and tittle than there was when Jeus walked the earth, or when Paul and John walked the earth. If there was, we could experience sinless perfection in any and all areas of our lives as well. That there would be error masquarading as truth, and a lack of a perfect consensus amongst all involved is as much a fact of life in the kingdom of God now as it has been from the garden (Genesis 3) to the churches just emerging from the first century (Rev. 2,3).

I don’t want to mischaracterize your position (which is very easy to do in such discussions).  But it APPEARS to me that you believe the following. 

A clear, visible, and authoritative structure was laid out in Acts and the Epistles (and the Gospels).  The Church operated in a way that agreement on doctrine was both expected and achieved on the part of each and every church within the Church—with dissenters being outside of the Church.  We are specifically, and repeatedly, shown how doctrinal disputes were resolved—including Scriptural ones—through a unified authority (a Church council, and some having more authority than others—even among the Apostles). 

There were offices set up, whose titles were sometimes ambiguous (bishop, overseer, elder, deacon), but whose function was clear.  Men who were not part of the original 12 were selected and exercised authority (including Paul, a successor to Judas, bishops, etc.)—and, again, there were ways to break the tie when they disagreed with each other. 

The seat of this Church was Jerusalem at the time—although both Peter and Paul went to Rome and died there (and Peter is buried in the catacombs beneath the main alter of the Vatican).  Grace builds upon nature, and on a natural level this organization with made feasible the missionary travels where each and every missionary preached the same Gospel.

But, as I understand it, your view is that all of this was to simply disappear upon the death of the last Apostle:  at least the part of it in which critical disagreements among the churches could be resolved and accepted by all within the Church.  This is because the last Apostle died, and there was no succession of that authoritative function.

Since revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle, and the NT was written by then, it COULD NOT BE POSSIBLE for me to show you FROM THE BIBLE the succession of offices AFTER the death of the last Apostle.  (But if you can come up with any realistic alternative design whereby every Christian on the face of the earth agrees that, say, Scripture teaches that homosexual acts are sinful—or they are subject to excommunication of the Church—if you can make it work I’ll be your biggest fan!)

Which brings me to your primary stated basis for believing this: Revelation—the book that describes what happens when Christ returns.  However, your point is reasonable that Rev is not just for the end times:  it has been held to represent what we all to through in each of our lives, as well as what the Church PERIODICALLY goes through—such as when Jerusalem was destroyed about 70 AD (which may have something to do with the center of Christendom moving?).  Indeed, many have opined that Rev was specifically referring to the fall of Jerusalem (as well as the literal end of the world). 

I think you are missing some things in Rev.  But more importantly, I think your approach illustrates why we do not have unity of teachings, and how Scriptural disagreements arise.

You focus on just a few aspects of one book, and you make a reasonable case!  And that can be done for almost anything in Scripture:  Scripture interprets Scripture—but there is so much Scripture!  Various books of the Bible were written for various purposes and styles.  It is easy to focus on one (or a few) trees and miss the forest…indeed, it is very difficult not do so.  In this case, the Rev letters from Christ were written for very specific purposes, but you view them as ALSO proving that there is no PRIMARY church…but that does not seem to me to be the meaning or purpose of the letters.

And what of those who knew and loved the Apostles and carried on AFTER them?  They clearly believed that there was to be an authoritative hierarchy with the authority to rule on doctrinal disagreements.  Did Christ abandon the Church that was just set up?  Allow it to immediately fall into error?

Well, look at the facts.  All truth is God’s truth.  What approach worked in ensuring that all Christians were united in belief?  What has happened to religious faith and religious practice in face of Christians disagreeing over EVEN THE MOST BASIC elements of teachings—all while claiming that THEIR view came from the Bible!  In time, believe in the Bible itself has diminished—and this is understandable!  After all, if the Bible has no defined meaning upon which even the devout can agree…

(Certainly, when Christ returns to earth things will be indeed different—and there will be no need for an earthly, visible, hierarchy to interpret Scripture for all believers.)

I’m out of time to spend on this issue:  we’ve been going over the same ground, and we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. 

For example, you make a distinction between disunity and failure to accept (or receive) teachings:  to me, that is the primary DEFINITION of disunity.  You appear to think that agreement on such basic matters as sex outside of marriage is utopian:  I believe that history has PROVEN that it is not.

Moreover, we each have basic non-negotiable starting points from our reasoning.  Based upon your understanding of the Bible, you believe that it simply is not possible that even the most fundamental doctrinal disagreements could be resolved in a way that is binding on all believers through the primacy of one Church OR through church councils made up of bishops from all the churches.  Starting from the basic point dictates where you will wind up.

My non-negotiable starting point is that I believe that the Bible, Church history, and current events clearly establish that agreement on basic doctrine is FUNDAMENTAL to passing on the faith, saving souls, and advancing Christ’s kingdom.  I believe that the NT clearly teaches that most fundamentally Christ established a Church, not a Bible, and that this Church is (in part) visible and hierarchical, and that Christ prevents it from teaching that homosex is a good to be celebrated. 

I simply do not believe that it is within the realm of possibility that the Holy Spirit has not provided a practical way for Christians to agree that homosex is wrong.  So for me, KJS is a DEFINING problem (in a way that homosexual misbehavior is not—no matter how tragic and inexcusable the consequences).  That is, whatever the “church” is, the PB by endorsing homsex had taken her flock outside of it—and vividly illustrated the problems with believing that there is no binding authority to interpret the Bible outside our individual beliefs (or the the teachings of an individual church bishop—where there is no superior earthly authority to excommunicate or correct).

Our views are mutually incompatible.  And while we may view each other’s starting points with understanding, and even empathy, neither will give them up based upon a brief internet discussion.  But, the discussion may give us (and others) a basis for contemplation and prayer over the future years.

This last thought:  this forum is one of the best that I have ever seen in terms of people disagreeing on the basis of reason, with the personal attacks being at a minimum (for the internet).  A remarkable accomplishment.

Just to widen the debate a bit, here is a perspective that is neither Anglican or Roman.

http://www.antiochian.org/scriptureandtradition

Benedict, you shot yourself in the foot with one of your last statements: “I simply do not believe that it is within the realm of possibility that the Holy Spirit has not provided a practical way for Christians to agree that homosex is wrong.” PSSssst. C’mere. I got a secret for you. Its called the B I B L E.  Genesis 19 [cf. Jude 7]; Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9. THIS is how the Holy Spirit “provided a practical way for Christians to agree that homosex is wrong.” Furthermore, as I had pointed out in a previous post, 1 John 2:18-27 very clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit does guide His church individually in the understanding of scripture. This dovetails perfectly with John 14:16,17 and John 16:13-15, not in the sense that we have become Scripture writers, but the Holy Spirit, which abides in us, makes us to understand that which is written. “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ. And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ”. (1 Cor. 2:10-1 Cor.3:1) The Apostles, having been born again of the Spirit, of course received the gift of Apostleship and received and recorded the Scriptures, a ministry unique to then, but it becomes clear as you read through this passage that the same Holy Spirit that would give the church, Christs mystical body (Eph. 1:22,23), the same spiritual understanding of what was written. This dovetails perfectly with what John wrote in 1 John 2:20,21,26,27: “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth…These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him”.  Pauls admonition to Timothy is instructive to the entire body of Christ. In Timothy 2:14-18, Paul is warning Timothy to oppose early gnostic ideas, and tells him the key in verse 15: “Earnestly study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman unashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” . Jesus states plainly in His High Priestly prayer: “I have given them Your’ word…Sanctify them in Your truth; Your word is truth”. THIS is the model given by God through the apostle Paul for the church to avoid error: “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,  from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”  (Eph. 4:11-16). This is Gods way. Not establishing some top-heavy, gnostic hierarchy, but the true church, the mystical body of Christ, [now you are Christs body, and individually members of it 1 Cor. 12:27] speaking the truth-Gods word-in love, G R O W S   U P-and thereby can resist false doctrine. Again, the Apostle John:”...I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one”. (1 John 2:14). Finally, you ask: ” Did Christ abandon the Church that was just set up?  Allow it to immediately fall into error?” I’ll answer the second question first: the people of God are allowed to be tempted and deceived by the wicked one, from the Garden (Gen.3) to Revelation (Rev. 2,3). The devil even had the audacity-and Gods permission-to try to misuse scripture to do the same Jesus. Since the disciple is not greater than his Master, then the devil will surely be allowed to try to decieve the church as well, and that he HAS is well attested to in the writings of the apostles. Now-has Christ abandoned His Church? “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you”.(John 16:7-15). If you want to consider that abandonment, then take it up with God. In closing, Christ resisted the devils lying temptations with-what else?- the word of God. He has left us 1) an example to follow,2) a fuller scriptural revelation to use than He possesed at the time, 3) and the Holy Spirit to teach us its truths. Psalm 119 to all, and to all a good night. -Bob