In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part 10 – A Historical Defense

Michael –

Congrats on finishing the series. 🙂

I do believe in sola Scriptura in that we have been given Scripture as the final measuring stick for our faith and the practice of such, though I also respect church history/tradition as well as being connected to the current body of Christ in helping to walk out our faith. Still, our consciences are to be held captive by God and His Word. I think first century Judaism shows tradition can go a bit askew (Matt 15:1-9).

But, here are a couple of questions to think through more, though I am sure you have thought through such but did not have time to address every issue in a shorter blog article:

1) How do we see sola Scriptura functioning in the first couple of centuries (100’s and 200’s) when there was not a completely formulated NT canon? We know that there was a general understanding of what was recognised as the God-breathed Scriptures, for even Peter refers to Paul’s writings as equal to Scripture (2 Pet 3:15-16). But there was some struggle and discussion over writings like Hebrews (not knowing who authored it) and the letters of James and Jude, as you are aware. So, I know you claimed an ‘underlying’ and somewhat ‘underdeveloped’ doctrine of sola Scriptura in the first centuries, but can we solidly claim such for those first couple hundred years since no NT canon was really set in stone until possibly such things as the Athanasius’ 39th Paschal Letter in AD367 or the Third Council of Carthage in AD397 (though maybe there were a few things before that to ‘set the canon in stone’)?

2) Finally, how would you deal with the question in regards to the recognition of the canon is actually established through tradition (the decision of our fathers so long ago). I believe it was God’s providence that established such a canon, but we wouldn’t have that canon unless our father’s had concluded on such (tradition). So, does the canon actually rest on tradition more than we sola Scriptura’s like it too?

But these questions might be addressed in the whole series, I just can’t remember. I will have to go back and read the PDF (all 31 pages!).

Thanks again for the articles.

When and how, if ever, did the written word assume almost pre-eminent importance in Christianity?

After 1) the death of Jesus; and then the death of living witnesses .. there was not a lot else left.

A Temple? Not particularly 2) after the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of God’s main Temple, by Rome, 70 CE.

Living memory was probably all but extinguised then particularly, when most Jerusalem Jews were killed or sent into exile, outside the city.

At that point 4) a new breed of Rabbis appeared; necessarily not connected with the main temple, which no longer existed. And more dependent on … written records, texts.

After all this, Jesus would have been known not in person; nor even through The Temple cult; but increasingly, only through – admittedly partial – written records.

5) Indeed, the Road to Emaus has Jesus appearing primarily as “Scriptures” are read.

6) So that by the time of John – c. 90 ACE? – the identification of Jesus with not just oral “words,” but probably with written texts too, was so great that Jesus and God were simply identified as the “Logos”; which is usually translated as the “Word.”

A term which to be sure, might be taken to mean the new oral tradition. But which has connotations of writing too: cf. our English “logogram,” etc..

But in any case, Jesus, c. 70-90 CE, is now in the aethereal “place,” as Foucault and Derrida might say (or we might say, the new temple), of Language. A kind of disembodied word or thought – or “spirit” – in an ethereal “heaven,” someone might say.

Comments have been deleted due to spamming the blog with comments.

Please make sure all comments are thought out and not just cut and paste. Please deal with the substance of this post. We can cut and paste the Fathers all day long. I have been in too many discussion where that is all that is done and it gets nowhere.

Please read the rules.

As well, the spam of blog posts assumed a different definition of sola Scriptura that I have not been defending (i.e. solo scriptura). I don’t have time to argue all the points that I have made in the previous 10 posts.

Please, if you are going to try to make an argument here against what I am arguing, read the rest of the series.

However, I understand if you don’t have time.

Here is a list of Church fathers quotes that some would say doesn’t support sola Scriptura: http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

However, none of them that I can see militate against sola Scriptura. They simply argue for a high respect of tradition, the same thing I have done!

It is not about whether the church fathers looked to tradtion or the regula fidei as an authority. We all agree they do and we all agree that we should. The questions is was the Scripture the final and ultimate authority.

I believe this is the case.

please read the update

Hey Michael. A discussion thread has begun on Theologica entitled – How Complete Is The Revelation?.

I thought you might be interested. And, I hope you wouldn’t mind but I uploaded the full In Defense of Sola Scriptura document you wrote. I thought it would be ok since you uploaded the document to your blog and wanted it available to anyone.

Thanks

Been looking forward to this for a long time, Dr. Patton. As an ex-Pentecostal, I’ve really loved the doctrine of sola Scriptura and this series has only heightened my appreciation of this teaching. Good stuff!

Thanks Doug.

For those of you who are interested in the early church (and you should be!), Reclaiming the Mind is seriously considering getting all the major early church documents on MP3. This includes the Apostolic Fathers and many works from Augustine, Athanasius, the Cappidocians, and some of the more relavent Eastern Fathers. We will spend time recording these ourselves.

If you want, you can click on this link for a really good website with all the early church father’s writings – Early Church Fathers.

What I think is very important about the points Michael makes is the nature of progressive revelation. The Christian community did not articulate the concept of the Trinity, for example, for a couple of hundred years, but it was true all along. What is crucial here is that it is almost assured that there were hundreds of thousands of Christians who lived and died knowing nothing of that doctrine. In fact, I think it is highly likely that most, if not all, of the apostles themselves did not really have a grasp on this concept. If they had, they would have taught it, and we would have it. No, it was revealed slowly, over time, from (as Michael puts it) the “seeds” that were there all along.

The same could be said of the many aspects of Jesus’ divinity, the role of baptism, etc.

This is so very important because it is a clear example of how doctrines that we see as crucial to the Christian faith are simply not as crucial as we think. Again, Christians lived and died and are now in heaven without ever knowing the doctrine of the Trinity and very likely not realizing the true nature of Jesus’ divinity. We must keep that firmly in mind as we debate seemingly seminal doctrinal issues.

CMP,

Congratulations for completing the series!

On a related issue, if one were to grant Sola Scriptura, how important is the Doctrine of Inerrancy?

For example, if one were to deny Biblical Inerrancy and instead affirm and support Biblical errancy, what impact, if any, would this have on Sola Scriptura?

What are the corporate and individual spiritual health impacts to Sola Scriptura and to errantists for being errantists.

At the time of the death of Jesus – c. 24-37 CE? – there were evidently, no uniquely Christian scriptures, gospels; there is not much of an account of the Apostles writing, even as Christ talked. And to be sure, if Jesus thought of himself as a loyal Jew, then he did not have in mind any other “scriptures” himself, but the OT/Jewish holy books etc..

By the time of Paul – fl. 55 CE? – apostles begin to tell us to revere “all” the “Scriptures”; but we don’t know exactly which “scriptures” that meant. In fact, “all” would almost seem to a) include all writings altogether. Or b) certainly the Jewish OT, etc.. While c) we cannot be sure it included many (or even any?) of the “new” writings, of what would later be called the New Testament. Our Bible does not seem to offer a clear “canon” or list of exactly which books would be considered sacred.

Still to be sure, we do see a reverence for some kind of sacred writings perhaps; even in Jesus being called the “Logos,” or “word.” And especially in the NT embrace of “scripture” … whatever that was.

To be sure, most scholars think that the tradition of Jesus was for some time c. 30-55 AD, carried on mostly by simple memory and oral traditions, sayins. So that … for the critical first generation after the execution of Jesus, there may have been no uniquely “new” writing on Jesus, carrying his memory on. So that indeed, whatever writing was subsequently put down, would ultimately be dependent on … that first generation’s memory, and oral narration. Not scripture.

So it seems almost certain, that there was a gap here, in the written record. IN the first generation after Jesus, essentially, there was perhaps no uniquely CHristian (as opposed to Jewish) scripture at all. Certainly, no fixed canon.

Thus it would be hard to argue, very strictly, for any absolute primacy of scripture. Given this crucial break or gap, between Jesus himself … and the first appearance of scripture; c 30-55 CE.

Given this, probably many modern/postmodern scholars, Biblical Critics, would just suggest that however firm the written scriptural tradition appears later on … it was all built on a foundation of sand; a perhaps vague memory, an oral tradition. For at least a generation. Or even two.

CMP,

I think I need to let you know that this mornings comments and deletions have left me confused to say the least. I read all of the quotes in the comments that were deleted this a.m. Granted, there were many of them and they were very long.

But my probem as, at first reading, they did present an argument against the historical argument you have presented here. Now, you have clarified and said they were not defining Sola Scriptura in the same way you are. But I no longer have the opportunity to go back and reread what they said so that I can either agree or disagree with your understanding.

So I am left with my head spinning and wondering if I was completely wrong in my first understanding due to a difference of definition or not! I only have two choices at this point: 1) take your word for it completely which is hard to do since I read quotes that seemed to be in contradiction, or 2) go and read all of the available printed material by the early fathers to find out for myself–which I certainly do not have the time to do, at least not now!

cheryl u:

Two things you could do:

1. Google for “early church fathers” and “scripture” (and/or “tradition” or maybe also “sola scriptura”) and you will find lots of Websites or blogs that list many of the quotes Peter posted, or similar ones, esp. if the writer is defending the Catholic or Orthodox Churches’ understanding of Scripture and Tradition. Read or skim a few of them until you find the ones that give the lengthy quotes in defense of interpreting Scripture in conjunction with the Apostolic traditions a la the Catholic/Orthodox teaching.

2. Buy/Read Keith A. Mathison’s bookThe Shape of Sola Scriptura in which he makes a strong case from the Church Fathers and from church history for the Protestant position. But some critics of Mathison charge him with being selective and misreading the Fathers to find support for Sola Scriptura. (Note: Mathison does NOT believe in or argue for “Solo Scriptura,” and he mentions this distinction many times in the book.)

= Time and money saved!

It seems to me that there is a presumption, not proof, that there was a gap between the written scripture and the oral tradition. Certainly bits and pieces of earlier versions have been discovered. There may have been scholars who recorded Christ’s teachings at the time, to teach from, and it could have also been they were also available as well the OT. Since we don’t know for sure either way, I don’t believe we can then presume the inerreancy of scripture is in question simply by virtue of the gap between them being compiled and spoken.

Cheryl, it would be good to go to the link I provided with has a lot of the quotes from the early church fathers that others would used that do not hold to sola Scriptura. I certainly would not think you need to go read all of the fathers to get up to speed, but that would be a great endeavor!

I have just been seen the proof texting of the church fathers for so long that it does more harm than good (for both sides) and never ends. It is like John Hannah, the church historian says, we all walk through the gardens of church history and choose the flowers we like the best.

My point in this post was not to illustrate that the early church fathers believed that the Scriptures were the only source of authority (something only the radical reformers promoted), but that it was ultimate among giants. Whether it is the word of God written, or the word of God spoken, the authority is the same. However, these quotes demonstrate that the early Church believed that the codified Scriptures were an ultimate representation of God’s word.

Of all the quotes that were given as well as those that I link to, I could agree with just about everyone. So could any Protestant who understands these issues.

However, if I just allow someone to come and and cut and paste over and over, it will give the impression, due to the multitude of references, that I must need respond to each one in order to make my case. However, if they would have read the entire series, they would see that most of those quotes are meaningless and cause me to have to start all over.

Also, this guys has done this before. I leave and there are dozens of cut and paste posts. This is not only misleading and unhelpful, but runs others off.

Or you could also buy William Webster’s book on the subject. It is massive and filled with quotes that support the Protestant position. While it is a good resource to relavant text, from my perspective, has a bit too much proof-texting.

Sorry, Cheryl, I thought I posted this earlier right after I deleted all the comments. Here it is: http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

But again, none of which I would necessarily disagree. We all see through our lenses. But one of the best things about being a Protestant is that there is much more freedom to explore such issues and adjust. But, in this case, I don’t think there is reason to do so at all.

MBaker:’

If the New Testament has no account of people taking down Jesus’ words exactly at the same time he spoke them (which I’m not sure about to be sure) … then that would seem to firmly indicate some gap, between the moment Jesus spoke … and any written record or scripture.

Some write about things they have “heard” and have “seen” of the “power” of God. But does that refer to actually seeing first hand the events in God’s lifetime? Or say … seeing first hand the conviction of the 1st or even 2nd generation faithful? Indeed perhaps John did this … but most scholars think he wrote c. 90 CE.

To be sure, there are perhaps accounts of people writing an account of Jesus after the crucifiction. But often they are modest even about their own accuracy. James for example admits that “we all make many mistakes,” even as he writes his section of the NT.

In any case, a review of the early Church clearly shows that the earliest Christian writers we know … spoke in ways that implied a more limited list of NT writings than we have today; indeed, as someone noted above, the canon did not start to firm up until … even two hundred years or more after Jesus dies.

I can see this turning into a “canon” thread. Be careful.

I don’t want to see that happen either, CMP. I think that’s for another day, and another post.

My only point is that in questioning the inerrancy of scripture, which was done in a comment above, based upon a quid pro quo argument that one person can’t prove it isn’t and the other can’t prove it is, leads to unnecessary presumptions (not yours) about sola scriptura itself, and gets a discussion totally off point….

This is a very informative series and I would like to see the discussion advanced in that way, not drift off into speculations like some of the other threads here have tended to get bogged down in.

Go ahead; we just wanted to sketch in some foundational questions briefly.

CMP,

Thanks, I did read the quotes at the link that you gave. There were a couple that I thought a little bit “ifey”. But for the most part I agree with your take on them.

By the way, I am not questioning Sola Scriptura itself at all. I very firmly believe it to be correct.

Sorry if this may seem off topic for a moment.

Dr. G,

Who is “we”? Conversing with, or reading comments from, an unknown group or entity is a bit disconcerting, to say the least.

I’m wondering what ‘foundational’ is considered to be in the above comment as well. Is this based upon the commenter’s belief or those of scripture, or is it specifically related to the writings of this post? And if so, where is the specific ‘foundational’ source it is referring to?

Who is the “we” that are arguing that the written record to Jesus is not continuous to Jesus himself? Therefore casting doubt on various claims for scripture?

Who suggests that immediately? Post # 1, Scott L – and I – seem to be making a similar point. While “we” might also be taken as the editorial “we”; or a community of scholars too.

Many are making this kind of point: if you want to argue that the church has always said, and should always say, that scripture is always the chief source of its authority – or even the only source, sola or solo – then note many scholars today, in many Protestant denominations, are suggesting that was not always true. Many are calling attention to issues of scriptural authority. While suggesting that other authority, plays a larger role than many thought. Including say, oral traditions.

Note for example, in CMP’s introduction, that perhaps the first Church figure he quotes – Irenaeus – in effect seems to say that he or his aquaintances were among the first to begin to write (probably holy) scriptures … after the verbal testimony of others. So that the scripture appears first to have (in one reading of I.) was first orally transmitted, or “proclaimed in public.” And only at a later period, handed down in “scriptures”:

CMP quotes Irenaeus (ca. 150) Against Heresies 3.1.1:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (Roughly).

[How do we get those nice green quote lines, by the way?]

There’s more:

“Notice how Irenaeus equates the traditions with the Scriptures. Indeed, they proclaimed the truth at first (unwritten tradition), and at a later period”handed it down in the Scriptures which is now the ground and pillar of our faith. Sounds very Protestant”

But does that really sound Protestant to everyone? The Church today says that much of its authority comes not from scripture, but from oral culture. And notice here, a key phrase that has been hidden in quotes; that what became scripture began with an “unwritten tradition.” That only later becomes “scripture,” it seems.

That doesn’t sound Protestant to some. In I’s time, the Church was already probably, rather Catholic – while the modern Church firmly asserts today that while some traditions came down in writing … others were “spoken” and so forth. While indeed, this quote by I. seems open to that understanding. (Among others to be sure; most Biblical passages having more than one level of meaning in them).

To be sure, though, let’s not get bogged down in this issue.

Still, perhaps it has been useful for once, to slow things down a bit; people were complaining about huge masses of Spam flying; too much volume. For once, a small slow-down, might have been useful here?

Please feel free to pick up the thread again; comparing one scripture against another, etc..

Dr. G,

Saying “we” wanted to say something obviously implies mutual agreement to say whatever was then put forth. Saying “we” wanted to implies that you have conversed on this subject and this particular pronouncement in particular. It implies that you have been given permission to speak for a group. So I think it only logical to ask who the group is!

Here, the concern is for the “foundation” of scripture itself. Which is relevant to a discussion of solus or solo or sola scriptura. In that: if you want to claim that the Protestant church is firmly based on that … as a foundation, then … we need to ask 1) is that a firm foundation? And 2) do all Protestants really agree with that?

You began with the assumption that one or more of these two elements, were true; they were the implicit “foundation” of your argument.

By the way, we here and now do not offer any other firm “foundational” idea of our own. We am merely addressing what appear to be cracks in the foundational assumptions of any argument for solo or sola scriptura.

To prove one thing is wrong, we don’t have to prove we have a ready replacement for it, a new foundation, that is true.

In this case, it seems from the above, that solo or sola (or solus?) scriptura … has some foundational issues. Even the earliest Church fathers appear to be saying … it was from sayings, proclamations. And the source of those sayings is not clearly credited.

But “Which they did at once time proclaim in public.” And then only later became writing it seems.

I have update the rules: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/04/blog-rules/. Hopefully that will clarify some things.

Here are the quotes that were posted earlier in defense of an opposing view. If you have any comments or would like to ask questions about any one of these, I would be happy to engage. But only one at a time. However, make sure that you have read the whole series first!!

“The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine”is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors, — of course bona fide debtors. — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.” Basil the Great, Chapter X, Oration on the Holy Spirit,

“In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity.” Chapter XXVII, ibid

“Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers; — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches; — a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?” ibid

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (Augustine On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Augustine Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Epiphanius of Salamis, Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

“Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Sirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are do to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (Jerome, The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).

Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit (Papias, The Sayings of the Lord [between A.D. 115 and 140] as recorded by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3:39 [A.D. 325]).

Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (Origen On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 [circa A.D. 225]).

Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day, [the Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, “It seemed good as follows,” for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, “It seemed good” but, “Thus believes the Catholic Church”; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles (Athanasius, Letter on the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia [A.D. 359]).

That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief n two ways: first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church (Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory 2 [A.D. 434])

“on the other hand, even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep for ever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably” (On “Not Three Gods” in NPNF, vol. 5, pg. 331).

[S]eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion… And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).

CMP,

Do you no longer have a working e-mail address for this blog? I have been trying since this a.m. to contact you by e-mail and it is not working. Would you mind e-mailing me so I can get in touch with you?

Again, most of these quotes simply demonstrate that there is more than one authority…something that I have already argued and sola Scriptura has no problem with.

But my quotes in this post at the very least demonstrate that there was an ultimate authority.

You also have to understand the context and the time of history in which all of this is going on. There would be less need to appeal to the final authority of Scripture seeing as how the longevity of unwritten information had not necessarily run its course of solid reliability.

I think the point is that we do have a clear enough picture from both written and oral traditions that most can agree that there are enough facts from original sources such as Christ Himself and the disciples recorded that we can establish sola scriptura was not just belief of the church fathers, which followed, as CMP has also pointed out.

I think it is clear that the source should be Christ himself, and the words of those who followed Him, which were subsequently recorded by men who could more easily prove or disapprove what was written because they lived in that time, or close enough to it that the facts were still pretty much known.

Yes, there are parts of the church who unfortunately dispense with the Bible to advance their own prophecies, and oral traditions, however the tests for being considered either an apostle or a prophet, and thus being able to speak the words of God Himself were they had to be present with Jesus, and to have witnessed the events in the Bible.

Paul, of course. was not present with Jesus as an original disiciple of His but was later appointed and counseled by Him directly to preach the gospel, and be qualified to say: Thus saith the Lord.

I would think that there was as CMP indicated probably much controversy surrounding whether any of the claims Jesus or any of the original scholars made were true or not. The final test I would think would be this:

If we are to believe that Christ offers salvation, then we must believe the other writings about Him in order to have any hope that any of it is true.

Suppose that for a while, the holy words of Jesus were not written, but were being passed from one person to another, in oral culture. Is that OK? Is such culture reliable?

Ever play the game called “telephone”? You put a dozen or more people in a row; and whisper something to the first of them, just once; and tell him to whisper it, just once, to the next person. And so on to the end of the line.

Then you ask the last person in that line, to write down what he heard. And compare that to what you originally said. Almost never, does what came out of this line of orally transmitted ideas, even remotely match, what went in.

And that is in, say, five minutes in the world of oral transmission. Imagine what can happen in two generations. Or three hundred years.

To quote what CMP said in his post called “What Is The Anchor of Your Faith?”

“I am curious. When you have doubts as you lay your head down on the pillow at night, what is the anchor of your faith?”

I have to believe that sola scriptura, or the Bible, is as accurate a testimony of the Christian faith there is now available to man. The anchor of course to me is Christ Himself.

re # 35

Today we “hope” for heaven, many say; but many suggest it is a “hope,” not a very, very solid “assurance.”

Michael’s citations from early church authorities strongly support the principle of ultimate authority of scripture (whatever that scripture may be, whether the OT or new writings) in the early church. Yet, we know that principles are not always honored in practice. Can you cite any specific cases for which the issue was decided by appeal to scripture rather than tradition?

Ironically, the notion of authority of scripture is itself a church tradition. This is true because Jesus Himself did not commission anyone to write, or authorize any new writings, or write anything Himself. Had He done any of these things, we would not be having this discussion. What Jesus did institute was the Holy Spirit as the guide for righteousness and truth. Evidently, the earliest church took that seriously.

Jesus did not have to write anything Himself to prove anything, because He was the scriptures made real, the Word of God made flesh, as John, his disciple testifies in John 1:1-14. Christ also taught from the scriptures Himself, and often quoted from them.

mbaker,
Also those times Jesus was quoting, He always said “It is written” or “that prophecy must be fulfilled”.

He validated the OT when he quoted from it, He established teaching about Himself from it. Therefore the OT is certainly as important as the NT.

Yes, and certainly if He would have meant scripture was no longer of any value, He would have surely said, “It is not necessary to record anything else in writing, since you have the Holy Spirit.” Certainly the gospels would not have been written at all had it not been for His disciples wanting to tell the world the Good News had come, as recorded through the centuries by OT scripture.

Interesting too, that when Christ came back from the dead He taught the disciples all the meaning of the scriptures that he had previously spoken to them before in parables.

So we have several examples that Jesus was the logos, in person, and respected scripture as God’s word. John 17, quotes Him as saying: “Sanctify them in the truth, Father. Your word is truth.”

After all, God Himself did have Moses transcribe the ten commandments on stone tablets, and told one of the other prophets to record their vision on a tablet.

Not to mention the book of Revelation had to have been transcribed or passed along, at least in some manner by the disciple John before he died, since he was exiled on Patmos, and is it estimated that it was written about 95A.D. It was written in first person by John, and it opens with Christ’s messages to the seven churches, which by then had already been established.

I skimmed the series. Nice work.

But no mention of the Radical Reformers (Anabaptists)???

When I pray for my brothers and sisters in China, Iran, North Korea and other places where they may be under persecution, one of the things I ask our Father to do is to provide each one with a copy of His Word. The Word of God is so precious and so powerful and so sufficient and so wonderful!!! Sometimes I feel guilty that I have so many bibles and some of my precious brothers don’t even have one. Will you guys help me pray for that?

I shall be more than glad to pray that God provide a way for those who do not have Bibles to obtain them, Stan.

God bless.

I wanted to share something that i think illustrates the pure power of the word of God. During 911 I was at the Atlanta airport getting ready to return to the pacific northwest after my daughter’s wedding. I was on an airline pass, and didn’t make the first plane before the president closed the airports. All the passes were confiscated by the airlines because they didn’t know who all had them, so I had to return across country on the bus.

I had my Bible sitting on the seat next to me. The first person it attracted was a woman with a tattoo of a third eye on her forehead, who asked if she could sit beside me. You can imagine what I thought. It turned out she wanted someone to talk to who would understand. She had given up her vacation (she was an EMT) to go help dig bodies out of the twin towers. She said she knew from my Bible that I would be able to comfort her, and she wanted to know why, why. She cried all night at the horror of it all. I was able to soothe and comfort her from the word of God. She finally slept.

In North Dakota a middle eastern man got on the bus. He was being taunted by others there. He saw my Bible also and told me the one of the most incredible stories. He had been in the navy of one of the smaller middle eastern countries, and found a Bible hidden in the bathroom. He was curious and begin to read it. He accepted Christ right there in that bathroom, because of what the Bible said. He went home and converted his wife mother and sister. They all came to the United States because their lives were in danger staying there. He was on his way to see his dying mother. He was so happy she was a Christian, and he would see her again someday.

So the word of God carries a power with it way beyond what any of us understand.

mbaker,

Thanks for those beautiful stories. The Word of God is indeed powerful and He uses it in mighty ways to bringing about His will for people’s lives and meeting their needs.

That was very inspiring, mbaker. Thanks for reminding us to keep the Word not only in our hearts, but also on our laps or beside us when we ride public transportation for the sake of the eyes, ears and hearts that may be open to Him.

Suppose that for a while, the holy words of Jesus were not written, but were being passed from one person to another, in oral culture. Is that OK? Is such culture reliable?

And that is in, say, five minutes in the world of oral transmission. Imagine what can happen in two generations. Or three hundred years.

This displays a very poor understanding of oral transmission in the ancient world.

Firstly, they were non-literate, that is writing wasn’t regarded as the most reliable form of information transmission. The spoken word was, and that backed by people who relied on memory for transmission. Even written materials like Paul’s letters were meant to be read out to an audience. Writing was an aid to memory, not a replacement for it.

Secondarily the teachings of rabbi like Jesus were in a form that aided memorisation. We ourselves can usually recall fairly accurately the stories of Jesus from the Bible. We don’t need to look up the story of the man let down through the ceiling to recall Jesus’ words “friend, your sins are forgiven” nor his contemptuous response to his critics “which is easier, to say that your sins are forgiven, or get up and walk?”

Thirdly it wasn’t passed from one person to another, it was passed from one group to another. Jesus had an audience when he spoke, whether it be as few as three or as many as ten thousand. Those who did manage to forget what he said would be quickly reminded by scores of co-witnesses. Likewise when the information was passed on the new recipients could come back to the first group and check to see they had the gist of the story right.

Imagine if in your game of telephone, the speaker spoke out loud to the entire group. He would use a format that made for easy memorisation, “the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain”. The group could sit and discuss it, and come back to the speaker if they were unsure of what he said. Now the members of that group go and tells other groups, with the same thing happening, but at the end of it the second groups write down what they were taught. How many would get the “holy” words wrong? In the words of Scribe, “not many, if any.”

That is oral transmission in the ancient world. That is why even two or three generations could have passed between the events happening and the records being written without any serious loss of information.

Of course my first simple illustration on the weaknesses of a predominently oral culture – the telephone game – is a very brief and simplified intro to oral culture. But note, yours is still not fully adequate either.

Note that 1) many ancient cultures had some writing to be sure … but the literacy rate was about 2% of the population. So that many stories would have been simply told orally, over and over, before being written down.

2) Specifically in fact, we have no reliable record of any consistent early written back-up, like a complete Bible in the early days; in fact what record we do have, strongly suggests an instable, incomplete canon.

3) In the meantime, who any alleged experts in oral transmission have spoken to? The simple people that Jesus often talked to? Who often misunderstood him?

Indeed, anyone who went around collecting stories of Jesus (like Luke?) – especially where there were only one or two witnesses; other people there besides Jesus himself – would often be … just talking, in oral culture. And talking to inexpert witnesses. Who we can see, if the Bible is accurate, often misunderstood him.

4) You yourself suggest these things ar “fairly” accurate; and often get merely the ‘Gist” of the story.

So first of all: the initial collection of stories would have been unreliable. Then too, regarding the subsequent transmissions? Over the next three hundred years?

5) Though ancient cultures had ways of helping them memorize long passages … of course, still, memorization was often not reliable. Try to remember all the poetry you memorized forty years ago, yourself.

6) Do you really personally think that memorization was so good? Then what good was the Guttenberg Revolution? And this printed screen? No advance at all?

7) Then too, regarding sacred memorizing groups? When did they form? And what did they do when witnesses conflicted?

8) Then too, many living witnesses and groups would have been killed, when Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome, c. 70 CE. So that many living memories disappeared.

9) And when Christianity moved to Rome? An entirely different country, separated by generations from Jesus?

10) Then too consider all the interested parties, that would like to “remember”/spin facts their own way. Easy to do when there are few witnesses to contradict you.

11) While then too remember that many allegedly saw the miracles of Jesus … and yet did not believe/report them accurately; did not convert.

12) Then multiply all these difficulties and more, by 300 years? And what do you get?

You get absolute holy certainty?

Jason,
That’s the accusation of atheists and other religions to deny the truth of the Bible.

You assume they were not literate. A very good book you need to read is How the Irish Saved Civilization. Moses was literate, and according to that statement, he would have relied on oral tradition to write the Pentateuch.

The mid-eastern oral tradition is strict. Griots in Africa recite word for word for word every oral tradition from one to another. And most often oral tradition carries with it a certain truth because what history writers do is indeed leave out certain facts to manipulate or venerate who they want to present as being the hero or the villain.

If writers do that, how can we be sure of the veracity of a message? We can see if it is consistent throughout time. And it was proven in the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Bible of today is supported from ancient documents, word for word and not interpolated back into verses at a later time.

But the very clear understanding you must have about the Bible is that it was not ever just written solely by man. God moved through those people to write it. God is the author, therefore in the transmission of His word He makes it clear and through the Bible there is a clear consistency of unity of thought and mind, from people who never knew each other. So in this supposed “telephone game” there are huge gaps of time and space.

One must conclude that if it were mere oral tradition, as many pagan religions themselves are, that the originator does not care about the message in each transmission, but He does and makes the effort to show us what is right, not through another oral transmission of person to person, but through speaking to the listener Himself and that is the difference in Judeo-Christianity as opposed to other religions, we have an interactive deity who works with His believers to not only hear the message, but understand the message.