Debate on

Sola Scriptura

This is the name for the doctrine that the Bible alone is sufficient for faith and practice.  Pastor Colin Maxwell and I are conducting a debate on this topic via his website.  If I may allow a personal comment, we maintain cordial personal relations, and we are each, whilst exploring this topic as honestly as possible, also frankly trying to "convert" the other - like honest men!

Link here for  a concise statement of the Catholic position on this doctrine.

With Pastor Maxwell's permission, I here  reproduce our public debate to the present time, text complete and unedited:-

Cork Free Presbyterian Church, 10 Briarscourt (Annex) Shanakiel, Cork, Ireland Pastor: Colin Maxwell. Email: cfpc@esatclear.ie

EMAIL DISCUSSION WITH A

ROMAN CATHOLIC ON THE FINAL

AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE

Pastor Colin Maxwell writes:
"After some initial contact, I received the following email. I am willing to discuss with our Roman Catholic friend the doctrine mentioned above i.e. that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for faith and practice. My only condition - apart from the obvious one that all debate is to be free from any rancour - is that we keep our discussions short and to the point. We set a limit of 200 words and this should not be exceeded. Longer points can be broken up into shorter points. Even if this leads to more frequent emails, at least they are manageable. I am not interested in getting reams and reams (or the email equivalent) of information at one go. His comments are in dark blue...mine as ever in red."
 
 

RECEIVED 29-8-04 Dear Colin, Thanks. Sounds eminently sensible. I'll need to check how much is 200 words. Firstly, therefore: On what do you base the assertion that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for faith and practice? In Christ, M.O'F.

ANSWER: 2-9-04 This assertion is culled from the Bible itself. "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:15-17) That the canon was not yet then complete does not negate our claim, for there was nothing in the Scripture yet to be given which makes it differ from that which preceded it. Since the Scripture does not inherently fail to meet the end for which it was given i.e. doctrinal instruction etc., that the believer may be perfect etc., then we may conclude that it is sufficient in itself. This agrees with Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soulÉ" Conversion goes beyond initial reception of the gospel and includes the whole Christian life. The law of the Lord is perfect for this work i.e. it needs nothing else apart from the Spirit of God applying it to the heart. Colin.

ANSWER 3-9-04:
*2 Timothy 3:15-17 asserts the value of Scripture "unto salvation" but the passage does not assert the exclusive role of Scripture, which is the point at issue. The word used is profitable, not sufficient.
*I agree that later Scripture cannot contradict what goes before - provided that the passage in question is relating to an eternal truth or precept, or to an historical fact which cannot in the nature of things be changed. Scripture by definition is 'the Word from the Mouth of God'. He is a God of The Way, the Truth and The Light, not a God of contradiction. This discussion will be incomplete, however, without a full discussion of what is Scripture & what is not.
*Your argument that Scripture "inherently meets the end for which it was given" begs the question if one asserts the end to be "to provide an all-sufficient source of doctrinal instruction and Church practice". Whence is the first principle that Scripture alone can accomplish this?
*Regarding Psalm 18(19):7, St Paul writes that the Law in itself was not sufficient for salvation, otherwise there had been no need for the Saviour. M.O'F.

ANSWER 5-9-04: "Scripture" refers to that which is written. Apart from the Apocryphal controversy, I am unaware of any differences between us as to what constitutes the Scriptures. Basically, it is the Bible. Men's comments on the Bible are not scripture. They are scriptural if they conform to the teaching of the Book. A denial (say) of the Trinity is unscriptural because the Bible clearly teaches otherwise. While 2 Timothy 3:15-16 does not actually use the word "sufficient" yet if all I had was a Bible, then with the promised help of the Holy Spirit, I have that which would lead me on in doctrinal truth, would reprove and correct my sin, instruct me in righteousness and lead me unto perfection, thoroughly furnished unto good works. If I need tradition to interpret the Scriptures and am likely to err without it then the Scriptures on their own would not be profitable at all, but rather become a snare. That Paul should state what he did without any reference whatsoever to tradition would then be totally misleading. The law truly cannot save, as you rightly say, but it is perfect in pointing us the One who can...and that again without tradition. Colin.

ANSWER 7-9-04: We will, with your patience, leave the question of "the Canon of Scripture" aside for this posting.
You write, "if all I had was a Bible, then with the promised help of the Holy Spirit..."Can you show me where the Holy Spirit promises to an individual that the written word alone is "sufficient?" For I deny it.>
You write: "If I need tradition to interpret the Scriptures and am likely to err without it then the Scriptures on their own would not be profitable at all, but rather become a snare." Precisely. "Our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2Peter3:15-16) That is why Our Lord gave us not a Book alone but a living community, guided by the Holy Spirit, and with His Vicar and his successors. In later postings I shall present the evidence for this: meanwhile, you have still not shown, from Scripture, that Scripture alone is "sufficient". MOF

ANSWER 8-9-04: It is only when the Scriptures are wrested by the unlearned and unstable, do they become a snare. But since tradition is prone to the same dilemma, it signally fails to provide an answer to the problem. But if these same scriptures are not wrested but are interpreted in a way that is totally consistent with themselves, then they become a light unto our path etc., (Psalm 119:105) To return to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 again (written to an individual, although evidently for us all) the man of God (another individual-although for us all) can take the Scriptures and find them profitable even unto perfection. Why on such a key text, is the Apostle absolutely silent about the necessity of tradition which you decline to find rooted in the Bible but comes from elsewhere to make the Scripture profitable? If we were to meet face to face, could you bring me a copy of "tradition" so that my Bible readings can become profitable for the first time and not (as you believe) a snare? Where in Cork can I easily obtain my own copy so that I subject every teacher I meet to its standards? Can you simply define tradition? Colin.

ANSWER 9-9-04:
You wrote:  "Paul ... state[s] what he did without any reference whatsoever to tradition "... On the contrary, the context of 2 Timothy 3:16?17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus". In 2 Tim. 3:14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings — the traditions — that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul's reminder of the value of oral tradition in 2 Tim. 1:13,14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy's ministry. MOF

ANSWER 11-9-04: Where is your evidence that what your church terms "tradition" is indeed the same things which Paul exhorted Timothy to receive and pass unto others? This is assumed rather than proven. Tradition is a term which is often bandied around but never defined in any practical way. Those things which Paul taught were scriptural things. He often backed his arguments up with "What is written" i.e. in the Old Testament. Although he is the penman of fresh revelation from God, yet he never contradicts what is written elsewhere. This thought can lead us obviously into other subjects, which we should avoid at the moment. Suffice to say this, [i] Paul names Scripture alone in his closing remarks in chapter three. [ii] You would need to both meaningfully define and physically produce in a practical way this tradition which can be proven to be inspired of God and therefore not of a contradictory nature either with itself or the Scriptures of Truth. I don't believe that you can and such inability will show your belief in the necessity of tradition to be unworkable and therefore outside the basic requirements of professing Christians. We have Scripture. Where is tradition? Colin.>

ANSWER 12-9-04
* You wrote, "Paul names Scripture alone in his closing remarks in chapter three." Reply: Surely this is completely invalid argumentation. He has spent the entire Epistle until then in exhortations to Timothy, on teaching both oral and written, as I quoted on 9-9-04; ... to select 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and then artificially block out the preceding text of the epistle is precisely to "wrest" Scripture out of self-consistency. If you will forgive the comment, this is the kind of style that we, rightly or wrongly, tend to associate with the Protestant method. And to repeat, in 2 Tim 3:15-17 he still only says "profitable" - very much in harmony with the rest of the preceding Epistle - not "sufficient".

* You wrote, "Where is your evidence that what your church terms "tradition" is...(etc)?" Reply: I agree with our original stipulation of Ground Rules for this debate: 200 words per posting and one subject at a time. You contend that Scripture alone is sufficient for Faith and Practice. Therefore this principle must be written in Scripture. Can you show me where? In later postings I shall discuss with you about the meaning and objective reality of tradition: meanwhile, you have still not shown, from Scripture, that Scripture alone is "sufficient." MOF

ANSWER 13-9-04 I agree that Scripture is not to be isolated from its context, but it is Paul himself who words the matter at hand. The "oral teachings" which were necessary to preserve are included in the Scriptures.
If you fail to appreciate the argument of 2 Timothy 3:15-17, then another proof text for the sufficiency of Scripture is Acts 17:11 where the Bereans subjected Paul's teaching to the Scriptures: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. If the Scripture alone was sufficient for them to earn the praise of the Spirit of God in so testing the message of the Apostle - "more noble" - then I may conclude that I likewise will be praised by subjecting the claims of every teaching, true or false, to the same standard.

ANSWER 13-9-04: You wrote: "I agree that Scripture is not to be isolated from its context, but it is Paul himself who words the matter at hand."
My reply: Quite so. However, his word is "profitable," not "sufficient".
You wrote: "The "oral teachings" which were necessary to preserve are included in the Scriptures."
My reply: This is assuming what you have to prove, is it not? I will present the evidence that the ritual parts of the worship, from Apostolic times until the 4th century, were, in contrast to the doctrinal and moral precepts, deliberately not written down, but passed on orally within the community. They were very scandalised at any who broke this seal. It was to keep the pearls from being cast before swine. Even the Lord’s Prayer was not taught to the catechumens until 8 days before Baptism, and the long readings that we still have on Easter Vigil night were literally heard that night by the catechumens for the first time.
You wrote: "If you fail to appreciate the argument of 2 Timothy 3:15-17......."
I reply: I do appreciate that all Scripture is profitable. I note that he did not say "Scripture alone is sufficient," neither did he write, "Scripture being the following list of books:..." No, that was done by the Catholic Church. MOF

ANSWER 16-9-04: Two things. [i] Evidently we are not going to find agreement on 2 Timothy 3:15-17 If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then I can testify to using the Scriptures alone for 25 years and found them both profitable and sufficient. Whether this moves you to believe it is another thing. If the Scripture points me to Christ - and He is its key subject (Hebrews 10:7) - and leads me to trust in Him alone as my Saviour (as it does and I do) then if this is not enough, it is not that the Bible is insufficient but Christ Himself and this cannot be. I am not "accepted in Him" (Ephesians 1:6) and "complete in Him" (Colossians 2:10) and all without tradition. [ii] If you wish to introduce your tradition to the debate, then evidently you need to prove from a source other than your tradition that it is equal with Scripture. The Jews transgressed God's commandment with their tradition (Mark 7:13) Rome is also guilty of this charge. The Bereans (as above) most nobly employed the Scriptures to judge Paul's claims. I am most happy to subject your tradition to Scriptures. Colin.

ANSWER 17-9-04: You wrote: It is not overstepping our agreed bounds to say that while the Scriptures are definable and accessible, your so-called tradition is not.
I reply: It is a profitable topic; I am still waiting for you to show me where, in Scripture, it is stated "Scripture alone is sufficient". You asserted this was so. When we settle this matter we can proceed to the next point.
You wrote: When the Apostles in Acts 15 discerned the Spirit's mind, (mof: ...by an infallible Council, just as we continue to do today!). ..it was preserved in the Scriptures and circulated with binding authority round the churches.
I reply: Quite so. Another proof text for the profitability of Scripture, but not the sufficiency of Scripture alone.
You claim " ... another proof text for the sufficiency of Scripture is Acts 17:11" (mof: Actually it is another proof text for the profitability of Scripture. Neither prove the sufficiency of Scripture alone.) "…where the Bereans subjected Paul's teaching to the Scriptures"
I answer: Naturally. On this particular occasion his teaching was precisely that the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ were prophesied in the Scriptures (ie the Old Testament)(Acts 17:2). This was an appropriate approach for a Jewish Synagogue (Acts 17:1). On the other hand, just a few verses on in the same chapter, preaching to the educated pagans in Athens (Acts 17:19ff), he drew not from Scripture but from the Pagan literature, and later declared, "I preach Christ, and Him crucified!" He did not say, "I invite them to read the Scriptures". Hence your passage still does not support the declaration of "Sola Scriptura".
You wrote: "If the Scripture alone was sufficient for them to earn the praise of the Spirit of God in so testing the message of the Apostle"
I reply: See next posting for a refutation of this. MOF.
 

ANSWER 17-9-04 While I cannot produce the actual words "Scripture alone is sufficient" yet this is the whole tenor of the Scripture itself. In Acts 15, the infallibility of the Council is vested in their dependence upon infallible Scripture. No tradition is invoked. In Acts 17:11 the Bereans did not take Paul merely on his credentials as an Apostle but in his subjection to the Scripture. If that earns them the Spirit's praise of being "more noble" then I cannot aim for less. In Acts 17 while Paul changed his approach, yet the unknown God he proclaimed was not the unknown God of paganism, but of the Scripture. We cannot suppose that he wrote one thing and preached another. When the apostolic church "preached Christ crucified" (1 Corinthians 1:23) they did so subjecting their message to the authority of Scripture (Acts 8:26-40/1 Corinthians 15:3-4) I earlier introduced a significant verse from Psalm 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Perfect is a "sufficient" word…not a mere "profitable" word. The term "law" covers more than the Pentateuch as seen in its use in John 10:34 quoting Psalm 82:6 and 1 Corinthians 14:21 quoting Isaiah 28:11 See also John 12:34/15:25 Colin.

ANSWER 19-9-04: You write: "In Acts 15, the infallibility of the Council is vested in their dependence upon infallible Scripture. No tradition is invoked."
I reply: Surely their authority is based upon their knowledge that they had been chosen and appointed by Christ. At this point I am not arguing for tradition as such, but that the Apostolic Church did not rely on Scripture alone.

You write: "If the Scripture alone was sufficient for them to earn the praise of the Spirit of God in so testing the message of the Apostle."
- I reply: ...the message being, in this particular case, "You will find this in the Scriptures"...
You write: ... "more noble" - then I may conclude that I likewise will be praised by subjecting the claims of every teaching ... to the same standard."
I reply: It doesn’t follow, does it? You can’t prove, from this passage, that what applies to this particular case applies to very different cases. The Areopagites in Athens were not expected to accept St Paul’s words on the basis of Scripture alone, were they?

We have discussed Ps18(19):7. In context, this psalm is a general eulogy on the Law. Verse 7 cannot be "wrested" into a description of Christian conversion: most tellingly, if it really did, it would prove too much: that the Redeemer is un-necessary for Salvation, contradicting the constant teaching of St Paul that the Law was not sufficient for Salvation, otherwise there had been no need for the Redeemer. The translation need not even be "convert" in the Hebrew: it can mean "revive" or "refresh". MOF
 
 

ANSWER 20-9-04: In Acts 15 the Apostles came to their conclusion through the Holy Spirit opening the Scripture to them. If the Apostles were at odds with the Scripture, then they had no authority. They would have been no better than the legalists who started the trouble in the first place. Regarding Acts 17:11, if I get away from subjecting every teaching that comes my direction to the authority of Scripture, then I will be blown along by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14) and a prey to the cults. Yes, the Areopagites were expected to accept Paul's words on the basis of Scripture alone. Paul did not need anything else. He certainly (again) did not invoke tradition as he preached, but he did bring forth scriptural truth.

I think you have missed the point I am making in Psalm 19:7 You are restricting the law to that which convicts men of sin, but cannot save them. I showed how it has a wider aspect i.e. it is a term that covers the whole OT i.e. the written word of God at that time. By describing it as perfect, then it must be sufficient. Colin.
 

ANSWER 23-9-04: I am glad you now state: ‘I cannot produce the actual words "Scripture alone is sufficient" ’.
You write: In Acts 15 the Apostles came to their conclusion through the Holy Spirit opening the Scripture to them. If the Apostles were at odds with the Scripture...
I reply: The OT Scripture did not cover this specific case. The Apostles conferred. Peter addressed the Assembly. He did not read out the Scriptures, he recalled how the Holy Spirit had come visibly upon the gentiles, and appealed to their common sense not to lay burdens on gentiles that the Jews themselves had failed to carry. "And all the assembly kept silence". Then Paul & Barnabus related their experiences. James then recalled to all (but after Peter’s speech) that this chimed in with the general statement in Scripture about the Calling of the Gentiles. They then decided on the text of the letter, stating "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us (Acts 15:28)...—a phrase still used to this day by the successors of the Apostles, the Catholic bishops, when making a ruling. They did not say "We have searched the Scriptures, and we see there what we must do". Of course they did not contradict Scriptures, but they felt free to exercise their judgment and their God-given authority. Your proposed explanation of this passage reads your pre-conceptions into the text; they do not derive from it. MOF.
 

ANSWER 20-9-04: The inability to find the actual words quoted above does not disprove the doctrine. Otherwise we could not believe "The Glorious Trinity" yet we do. By not contradicting the Scriptures in Acts 15, the Apostles were clearly subjecting themselves to them. Their ruling, which was binding (16:4) was written into the Scriptures which gives rise to the reason why I raised this counsel in the first place i.e. that the teachings of the Apostles which are to be obeyed are found in the Scriptures. Here they are definable and accessible. Something which cannot be said of the tradition of your church, whatever and wherever it is! Was the phrase "It seemed good" etc., used in the deliberations of Vatican II and if so, do you accept it? I suspect you don't. I am interested in your comments on the Perfect Law (which must include the idea of sufficiency) in Psalm 19:7 Colin.

30-1-05
 

REPLY 30-1-05 Hello Colin. You wrote (10/1/05) "While I can produce texts which indicate the sufficiency of the Bible, "
I reply: I maintain that you have not, in fact, done so. You did, I believe, make this claim in the beginning, but I was able to show that the texts you quoted did not do this after all.
You wrote: (2-9-04) This assertion [Sola Scriptura] is culled from the Bible itself." ... All scripture is ... profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect ...." (2 Timothy 3:15-17) My reply: 3-9-04: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 asserts the value of Scripture "unto salvation" but the passage does not assert the exclusive role of Scripture, which is the point at issue. The word used is profitable, not sufficient.
You wrote: "I cannot find the actual words which you keep insisting on i.e. "The Sufficiency of the Scriptures." But then…if this is the criterion of what is sound doctrine, I could let the JW's and other Arians lead me astray on the "Glorious Trinity" for such words do not appear either, yet it is Biblical teaching."
I reply; Actually, I have discussed the above issue with JW’s and they can make a very robust claim for their arguments. The criterion for sound doctrine is in the infallible teaching of His Church, which includes the definitions of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council (or Fifth if you include the Council of Jerusalem recounted in the Acts of the Apostles). The substance of the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is there in Scripture, but it is not at all directly or succinctly written down. In fact it was the Council of Chalcedon (451) that wrote the definitive words about the nature of the Holy Trinity, and imposed them on the Faithful. You seem to be saying that I need the technical term "Sufficient" to be found in Scripture, yet I accept the technical term ‘Trinity’. No, it is not just the term, but the substance itself of the doctrine of sola Scriptura which is not to be found in Scripture.
You wrote; "I have acknowledged before my inability to produce these actual words, and a fresh challenge on your part only shows your willingness to keep flogging a dead horse."
I reply; I want you to concede clearly what has been established in our debate; viz. That the substance of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not to be found in the Scriptures themselves. If you disagree, please show us where. Either concede the point or show us your proof texts and answer my challenges to them (if any). Either I shall then concede your point, or you will concede the point. Then we may proceed to the next point of the debate. As I said before, I have four points of enquiry. The second point will, by the way, involve the issue of Tradition very naturally & integrally, and I am happy to answer your specific points then.

REPLY 9-2-05 Hi Michael. I'm getting somewhat dizzy going round and round in these circles. To be honest, I'm getting to the place where I don't care if I see your defence of Church tradition or not. If I reach that place, then I will simply conclude, that despite me almost begging you to produce your arguments, you are either unwilling or unable to do so and your tradition is not worth a ball of blue. I cannot concede to you that the Bible is an insufficient authority to any who simply seek to live by it. I cannot endorse the idea the Bible must give way to an so called infallible church which `can be seen to have contradicted the Bible and itself. This being the case, I am toning down this debate considerably, until you produce your defence of your church tradition. If you don't wish to produce your evidence, then we can draw the debate to an honourable close and go (as far as the debate is concerned) our separate ways. Colin.

Dear Colin, You wrote, 9-2-05 Hi Michael. I'm getting somewhat dizzy going round and round in these circles. ... despite me almost begging you to produce your arguments, you are either unwilling or unable to do so and your tradition is not worth a ball of blue.
Reply:  But we agreed to discuss the basis of sola Scriptura.  It is I who am begging you to give your proof texts.  We are not circling, but I am repeating the questions that you are not answering.  My suggestion in the last posting (30-1-05) is surely clear enough.  We agreed to discuss your basis for Sola Scriptura, but you keep changing the subject and trying to attack Catholic Tradition.  I made no secret of my religious affiliation, but notice that, so far, at no time have I based my arguments on Catholic Tradition; e.g. I have not asserted “This cannot be the case because the Catholic Church says so”.  Were I to have done this, you would have been justified in challenging my point of reference.  In a later stage of the debate, one anticipates that you will wish to invoke Sola Scriptura.  Therefore I am politely asking you to provide your credentials.  If Sola Scriptura is not to be found in Holy Scripture, does this not contradict your whole approach?  If it is to be found in Scripture, where is it?  At this point of the debate I am exploring the possibility that Sola Scriptura is not in fact a Scriptural doctrine, but an arbitary invention of the Reformation.
I cannot concede to you that the Bible is an insufficient authority to any who simply seek to live by it.
Reply: “Show it me in THERE!” (slapping a copy of the Bible on the table) (or the keyboard).
I cannot endorse the idea the Bible must give way to an so called infallible church
Reply: Whoa, my friend, we are not saying that.  Not yet, anyway. I am simply asking you to show your credentials.  I have not attacked the Cork Free Presbyterian Church.
...produce your defence of your church tradition.
Reply: You can very properly ask that when the debate begins to involve it.  For now I am arguing from nothing else than the words of Holy Scripture itself.  Are you not willing to do this? Please remind us of your proof texts if we have missed any.  Several times I have made a comment which I believe refutes your own point.  Do you wish to refute my comments on them?  Come, Pastor, we are still in the middle of this debate.
Michael.
Sent 22Feb05:

Hello Colin,
I have tried to keep individual postings to the 200 wd limit, but there is now a considerable backlog of items.  Also, I wish to push the debate along.  Hence I send the following 5 postings.  Deal with them as you think best.

My own website is nearly ready for uploading.  As our debate has been in the public forum, I trust you do not mind if I post it in its entirety & unedited.

Posting  22Feb05#1:
You wrote: 16-9-04:  If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then I can testify to using the Scriptures alone for 25 years and found them both profitable and sufficient.
My reply:  You are now taking refuge in subjectivism.  This is no good at all.  Proof:  any Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Moslem, Hindu or Catholic could say the same thing about their own religion.   I have heard them myself. Catholic teaching is that Faith perfects reason, it lifts it to a higher plane, but it does not negate it.  You must be able to provide objective backing for your assertions, otherwise you become like the lost souls in Milton: “Wandering in mazes lost”.

Posting  22Feb05#2:
Not having heard a reply, let us take it that ‘silence means consent’: you cannot provide the texts to support the claim that Scripture is all-sufficient;  and move on to the next point - or subpoint:  not only does Holy Scripture NOT declare itself to be sufficient in itself for faith and practice, but it contradicts it in two ways:  [1] Scripture actually testifies that not all the words of Our Lord were committed to writing;  [2] Numerous passages in the New Testament show the Apostles and Disciples at work, and they are not depicted as having been commanded to write, or to base all their preaching and teaching on the written word.  Instead, they preached by word of mouth, making reference to the Scriptures where appropriate - which was not always.  You did not answer the point about the preaching to the Areopagites, who knew nothing about the Old Testament.  Indeed, the fact of the Old Testament providing prophecies of the Messiah would have been part of their oral preaching.

Posting  22Feb05#3:
[1] You wrote: (17-9-04) While I cannot produce the actual words "Scripture alone is sufficient" yet this is the whole tenor of the Scripture itself.   You are making an interpretation of Scripture that cannot be sustained.  On the contrary,  Holy Scripture actually states explicitly that it does not  contain all the words and deeds of Christ:

John 14:  26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 21  24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Notice that St John actually states why all the words and deeds of Christ have not been recorded:  there was not time to do so.  Instead, the disciples were to go out and preach.

So, are these  words lost to us?  By no means, for Our Lord said:
Matt. 24: 35b  my words shall not pass away.

Posting  22Feb05#4:
[2] Not only does Holy Scripture not declare itself to be all-sufficient, but the Bible does actually state that some of Christ’s teachings were committed to oral tradition rather than by the written word.  Moreover, the Bible actually states that these teachings were no less important for having been committed to oral tradition, rather than having been written down.

2Thess 2:15
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2Thess 3:6
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Jn21:24-25
25 There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Jn 20: 30
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
...so where are they?
Could it be that some of Christ’s teachings have become extinct?
Mk 13:31
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

There is no questioning the meaning of those sentences.  Here the Apostle Paul specifically states that there are two  criteria of Christian truth:  that which was left to the Church via the Bible, via the written  word, and that which was left to the Church via tradition, via the unwritten  word — both of which, he says, are of equal importance to the faith of Christians.

Posting  22Feb05#5:
And why was it necessary to bequeath some tenets of Christ’s saving faith to the Church via the unwritten word, by word of mouth rather than by letter?  Again the Bible furnishes the answer:
Jn21:24-25
24 This is that disciple who testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So we have the Bible’s own word for it that there were some things which Jesus said ans did, some things which the Apostles taught, that were not written down, that did not find their way into the Bible — not because they were relatively unimportant, but because writing it all down with the means and time available would have been humanly impossible.

Had the Apostles and their disciples attempted to record all of Our Lord’s doings and teachings they would have had no time left for preaching and baptising.

Micheál.

You wrote: "I cannot concede to you that the Bible is an insufficient authority to any who simply seek to live by it." I reply: "Show it me in THERE!" (slapping a copy of the Bible on the table) (or the keyboard). You wrote: "I cannot endorse the idea the Bible must give way to an so called infallible church." I reply: Whoa, my friend, we are not saying that. Not yet, anyway. I am simply asking you to show your credentials. I have not attacked the Cork Free Presbyterian Church. You wrote:"...produce your defence of your church tradition." I reply: You can very properly ask that when the debate begins to involve it. For now I am arguing from nothing else than the words of Holy Scripture itself. Are you not willing to do this? Please remind us of your proof texts if we have missed any. Several times I have made a comment which I believe refutes your own point. Do you wish to refute my comments on them? Come, Pastor, we are still in the middle of this debate. In Christ, MOF
Sent 22Feb05:

REPLY 23-2-05 Hi. My arguments thus far have pointed to several scriptures which point to the sufficiency of the Bible in all matters of faith/practice. No man can err if he interprets the Bible in a manner consistent with itself. To say otherwise casts a dark shadow across the word of God. If it is said that no Spirit led Christian is capable of so interpreting the Bible, then no body of such Christians are so capable and the Bible becomes a relatively useless Book, failing in its basic objective i.e. to bring light into dark places (2 Peter 1:19) Again, I must argue from the idea that there can be no authority - which you call Church Tradition - higher than the Bible. This is where your position invariably leads. It did so with the Jews (Mark 7:1-13) It is almost inevitable. We may formulate, interpret and systemise what we believe the Bible teaches, but to go beyond it puts us outside the will of God. That cannot be a good place to be. Your arguments for church tradition would really be enhanced if you could vindicate them by the criteria mentioned above. Your failure thus far to do so is noted. Colin.

REPLY 23-2-05 Hello Colin, I have tried to keep individual postings to the 200 word limit, but there is now a considerable backlog of items. Also, I wish to push the debate along. Hence I send the following 5 postings. Deal with them as you think best. MOF

REPLY 23-2-05 #1 You wrote: 16-9-04: "If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then I can testify to using the Scriptures alone for 25 years and found them both profitable and sufficient." My reply: You are now taking refuge in subjectivism. This is no good at all. Proof: any Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Moslem, Hindu or Catholic could say the same thing about their own religion. I have heard them myself. Catholic teaching is that Faith perfects reason, it lifts it to a higher plane, but it does not negate it. You must be able to provide objective backing for your assertions, otherwise you become like the lost souls in Milton: "Wandering in mazes lost" MOF

REPLY 23-2-05#1 This is a pure put down. The only way which will satisfy you is for me to say to the effect: "If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then I can testify to using the Scriptures alone for 25 years and DID NOT FIND them both profitable and sufficient…so I decided to submit myself to the traditions of the Catholic Church." If you were arguing your position from a JW point of view, you accuse me of subjectivism until I said "…Scriptures alone…unsatisfactory…submit…faithful and discreet slave…Watchtower." Then, the subjectivism charge would be dropped. I am in the exact same position as Philip when he found Nathaniel and said unto him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." (John 1:45) I have done this entirely outside your church and its traditions. This has led me to trust Christ alone and His finished work to secure my salvation for me. I cannot improve upon that. This is not "wandering in mazes lost" but running into the strong tower of the Lord's name and being safe (Proverbs 18:10) Colin.

REPLY 23-2-05 #2 Not having heard a reply, let us take it that ‘silence means consent’: you cannot provide the texts to support the claim that Scripture is all-sufficient; and move on to the next point - or subpoint: not only does Holy Scripture NOT declare itself to be sufficient in itself for faith and practice, but it contradicts it in two ways: [1] Scripture actually testifies that not all the words of Our Lord were committed to writing; [2] Numerous passages in the New Testament show the Apostles and Disciples at work, and they are not depicted as having been commanded to write, or to base all their preaching and teaching on the written word. Instead, they preached by word of mouth, making reference to the Scriptures where appropriate - which was not always. You did not answer the point about the preaching to the Areopagites, who knew nothing about the Old Testament. Indeed, the fact of the Old Testament providing prophecies of the Messiah would have been part of their oral preaching. MOF

REPLY 23-2-05#2 In a previous email (15-2-05) I indicated that I was toning down this debate considerably, therefore your assumption that my "silence means consent" is grossly unfair. If I thought your position accurately reflected the apostolic stance, then I would say so and thank you for pointing it out to me and be eternally grateful that I had been delivered from error. Protestants do not argue that everything the Lord Jesus said has been recorded in the Bible. We believe that everything necessary for us to know have been recorded there. A different matter. To say that the Apostles were not commanded to write would suggest that did they write then without distinct commandment - a thought inconsistent with inspiration. I know this is not your position. The need for new revelation during the gospel and apostolic era does not negate the Protestant position that the Scripture is sufficient. The full canon rules out the need for more revelation. Re: the Areopagites, while Paul did not get as far as using the words "it is written…" this does not mean that any of his teaching was anti scriptural - a charge we must level against your church's traditions. Colin.

REPLY 23-2-05 #3 [1] You wrote: (17-9-04) "While I cannot produce the actual words "Scripture alone is sufficient" yet this is the whole tenor of the Scripture itself." You are making an interpretation of Scripture that cannot be sustained. On the contrary, Holy Scripture actually states explicitly that it does not contain all the words and deeds of Christ: John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. John 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. Notice that St John actually states why all the words and deeds of Christ have not been recorded: there was not time to do so. Instead, the disciples were to go out and preach. So, are these words lost to us? By no means, for Our Lord said: Matt. 24: 35b my words shall not pass away. MOF

REPLY 23-2-05 This is easy answered. As in the previous reply, Protestants do not believe that the Bible contains every last word and action of Christ, but (as said) it contains everything necessary for us to know. I won't accuse you of setting up and demolishing an "Aunt Sally" for it is likely that you have been ignorant of our position. Protestants hold that the things brought to the Apostle's remembrance (John 14:26) were later written down in the epistles. John 21:24-25 actually proves too much, since you can hardly claim that your church's tradition contains the whole of what Jesus said and did? As you know, I am still waiting for you to prove that what your church says is apostolic tradition is actually so. The Jehovah Witness's give me assurances about their extra Biblical teaching which are pretty similar to your own. Colin.
 

REPLY 23-2-05 #4 [2] Not only does Holy Scripture not declare itself to be all-sufficient, but the Bible does actually state that some of Christ’s teachings were committed to oral tradition rather than by the written word. Moreover, the Bible actually states that these teachings were no less important for having been committed to oral tradition, rather than having been written down. 2Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. Jn21:24-25 There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: ...so where are they? Could it be that some of Christ’s teachings have become extinct? Mk 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. There is no questioning the meaning of those sentences. Here the Apostle Paul specifically states that there are two criteria of Christian truth: that which was left to the Church via the Bible, via the written word, and that which was left to the Church via tradition, via the unwritten word — both of which, he says, are of equal importance to the faith of Christians. MOF

REPLY 23-2-05 The use of the word "whether" although most appropriate in the days before the canon of Scripture was complete (and therefore cannot be faulted) would not be appropriate now that the canon of Scripture is complete. As said before, these binding traditions were incorporated into the inspired canon and preserved for us, claiming those great promises that they would not pass away. Re: John 20:30…if the world itself could not contain the books which should be written, then tradition has also signally failed. What makes you think the Pope's library has prevented this extinction? All the while you make references to these Apostolic traditions, you assume that they are the which are propagated by your church. You assume that the Apostles prayed to or through Mary etc., I don't share your assumptions and indeed reject them. You can't prove me wrong from the Bible in doing so. Colin.

REPLY 23-2-05 #5: And why was it necessary to bequeath some tenets of Christ’s saving faith to the Church via the unwritten word, by word of mouth rather than by letter? Again the Bible furnishes the answer: Jn 21:24-25 This is that disciple who testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. So we have the Bible’s own word for it that there were some things which Jesus said and did, some things which the Apostles taught, that were not written down, that did not find their way into the Bible — not because they were relatively unimportant, but because writing it all down with the means and time available would have been humanly impossible. Had the Apostles and their disciples attempted to record all of Our Lord’s doings and teachings they would have had no time left for preaching and baptising. MOF

REPLY 23-2-05 Your neat little package starts to unravel once we challenge you to prove that your church is delivering Apostolic teaching. John 21:24-25 (which you have quoted in full several times in these latest emails) makes no reference to the words of Jesus. Merely the many other things He did. We know he did "so many miracles" etc., (John 12:37) and to have recorded all that could be told about these miracles etc., (as much as we would love to know) would make the faith almost cumbersome. Perhaps (for we are speaking here about the hypothetical i.e. "Had the Lord communicated them to us…") we would be taken up too much with the outward. Instead, He left us a sufficient and workable system whereby we can seriously grasp what God wants us to know and seek to believe/live accordingly. If we take on the traditions of your church and elevate them to equal status with Scripture (although they have really overtaken Scripture) then we take on too much. We are faced with something which can hardly be defined, is largely inaccessible and which contradicts the Bible and even itself. Thank you, but no thank you! :-) Colin.

ss13.2?
Text

REPLY 25-2-05 #5: You write (23-2-05#5 ): "John 21:24-25 (which you have quoted in full several times in these latest emails)......"
I reply: I plead guilty to sloppy editing! I have been compiling these pars. & sent them in a batch without sufficient proofreading, otherwise I would have retained the refs but deleted the repetitious quotings.
You write (23-2-05#5 ): "John 21:24-25 ... makes no reference to the words of Jesus."
I reply: No, the Catholic Church does not claim any direct quotes of Our Lord beyond what is in the New Testament (Gospels, 1 in St Paul plus the words direct to St John in the Apocalypse). What He did leave was a detailed system of Church organisation, and possibly some points of doctrine - see later, when we come to it.
You write (23-2-05#5 ): "Instead, He left us a sufficient and workable system whereby we can seriously grasp what God wants us to know and seek to believe/live accordingly. (etc).. Thank you, but no thank you! :-)"
I reply: Once again (if I may say so without offence) you show yourself better at posting accusations against the Catholic Church than at supporting your own position. Yes, you have a self-contained method which you live by, but can you prove that it is the system that Our Lord actually did leave? Your 200 words would be better spent in counter-refuting (or accepting) my successful refutations of your previous attempts to prove Sola Scriptura from the Bible itself. MOF See below for reply.

REPLY 25-2-05#3:You write 23-2-05#1 "This [the charge of subjectivism]...is a pure put down. The only way which will satisfy you is for me to say to the effect: "If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then I can testify to using the Scriptures alone for 25 years and DID NOT FIND them both profitable and sufficient…"
I Reply: No, you misunderstand, and the point is an interesting and important one. None of us may base his life on a mere self-centred "finding it to be profitable and sufficient". Our Lord did not say, "If you love Me, you will find your way of life profitable and sufficient". He said "Keep My commandments". Therefore we must discover the objective truth, and then attempt to live by it. As a young man, I did not try to explore how satisfying I found the life of the Catholic Faith, but I studied history to try to discover whether Catholicism’s claims were TRUE. I will share with you some of the things I discovered . MOF

REPLY 11-3-05 Let's return here, as you request, to some proof that the Bible is a sufficient rule of faith and practice. I will return again to: The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. (Psalm 19:7) Back in September 2004, you restricted the term "law" to the commandments and pointed out that if they could convert the soul then there was no need for Christ to come. I pointed out that the phrase "law" is wider than the Books of Moses, as evidenced from John 10:34 quoting Psalm 82:6 and 1 Corinthians 14:21 quoting Isaiah 28:11 See also John 12:34/15:25 I need hardly point out that the word "convert" is not restricted to "coming to faith in Christ" (though this is common usage) as Peter could be converted long after his initial faith. (Luke 22:32) In other words, the law or the word of God is sufficient to meet my every spiritual need. Again at the risk of being attacked - for you do attack - I find this observation to be true in my own spiritual experience. I am not trying to wrap a text round my experience (subjectivism) but I do test my experience by what God has said. Colin.

ss14
REPLY 26-2-05 You wrote: (23-2-05):"Your arguments for church tradition would really be enhanced if you could vindicate them by the criteria mentioned above. Your failure thus far to do so is noted."
I Reply: If you remember: we are supposed to be debating the question: "On what do you base your assertion that the Bible only is sufficient for Faith and Practice?" We agreed - 200 wds per posting & one topic at a time. I have agreed to discuss Catholic Tradition, after we have discussed the basis of Sola Scriptura. I have not yet argued for Church Tradition, because I maintain that Sola Scriptura can be refuted from a study of the Bible itself, quite apart from the issue of whether the Catholic Church is what She claims to be or not. This is a point of which I have had to remind you with some frequency.
You write: (23-2-05): "No man can err if he interprets the Bible in a manner consistent with itself."
I reply: This confident assertion from the middle of the 16th century has now been comprehensively refuted by experience. Luther ruefully admitted as much. We are faced with literally thousands of sects that all claim they are following the Bible faithfully, yet who differ in their interpretations.
You write: (23-2-05): "To say otherwise casts a dark shadow across the word of God."
I reply: But you have not produced that word. If I have missed anything, please re-paste the passage where you did. You call it ‘grossly unfair’ that I say ‘you cannot’. So quote these words for us all to read.
You write: (23-2-05): "If it is said that no Spirit led Christian is capable of so interpreting the Bible, then no body of such Christians are so capable and the Bible becomes a relatively useless Book, failing in its basic objective i.e. to bring light into dark places (2 Peter 1:19)"
I reply: Are you saying now that you hold to sola Scriptura because a supreme interpreting authority is impossible? If you are, this is a principle which you did not find in the Bible, is it not?
You write: (23-2-05): "Again, I must argue from the idea that there can be no authority - which you call Church Tradition - higher than the Bible."
Reply: But you cannot argue from that point before you have proved your point. That is precisely what we have been debating. I am willing to argue the case for the Catholic Church, but not before we have explored Sola Scriptura. I will not begin from the premise that the Catholic Church is the One True Church; I will present arguments in favour of this, to be openly debated. You must do the same with Sola Scriptura. MOF

REPLY 11-3-05 I refer you to my restating today of Psalm 19:7 which dovetails in with other scriptures quoted i.e. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 etc., I believe from these alone, I can uphold my position. Abuse of a position does not render it void. Many of the different sects have adopted the "Insufficient Bible" position which you uphold. No JW will interpret the Bible without the Watchtower pontificating upon it and the Mormons have their Book of Mormon - something they readily define, produce, and provide excess to. Having given you my proof texts - which I am very happy with - I see that they work out very well in every day life. I am not left up the proverbial creek without a paddle. I look around at others, not least the RC Church, and I see them in a complete mess. You, yourself, are at serious loggerheads with the RC church as it stands. I think the real reason why you won't produce your church tradition and give me the proof is that you are well aware that it won't stand up to scrutiny. If I took your position, I would hold back as long as I could as well. Colin.

ss15
Posting 20Mar05
You wrote (11-3-05) Again at the risk of being attacked - for you do attack ...
Reply:  I wrote (22Feb05#1): “You are taking refuge in subjectivism.”  My apologies for any (unintended) aspersions on motives: what I really meant was:  “The subjectivist line of argument cannot prove anything [because  the adherents of other religions can and do make the same claim]. ”
I will attack a wrong line of thinking if I believe it must be done, never your person.  You stand in the street  trying to bring people to Christ when others are wasting their God-given time, and for this I respect you.  I do believe your  Sola Scriptura approach is untenable, for the reasons we are debating.
 You wrote (11-3-05) I think the real reason why you won't produce your church tradition and give me the proof is that you are well aware that it won't stand up to scrutiny. If I took your position, I would hold back as long as I could as well.
Reply:  Take a yellow card!  We agreed at the beginning “one subject at a time, and no animosity”.  To this I take for granted “No personal aspersions: stick to the topic”.  If I believed that the Catholic position I take could not be justified, I would change it.
You wrote (11-3-05) Let's return here, as you request, to some proof that the Bible is a sufficient rule of faith and practice. I will return again to: The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. (Psalm 19:7) Back in September 2004, you restricted the term "law" to the commandments....
Reply:  My real point was that this verse does not equate “The Law” with “The corpus of written Scripture” which is your position.  You infer it, reading it into the text; you cannot then use it as a proof text.  You did not find Sola Scriptura there.
You wrote (11-3-05) ......which dovetails in with other scriptures quoted i.e. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 etc., I believe from these alone, I can uphold my position...Having given you my proof texts - which I am very happy with...
Reply:  In each case, inspection has shown that the passages do not, in fact, state the  Sola Scriptura position.  2 Timothy 3:14-17, which at first sight seems the most promising, is seen to be saying something different.  Similarly with the other texts we have discussed.  They cannot legitimately  be called “Proof Texts”  if they do not prove, or even state, what they are said to prove.   If the points I raised are wrong, I want to be shown where and how, as I have done with your own comments.
You wrote (11-3-05) You, yourself, are at serious loggerheads with the RC church as it stands.
Reply:  In fact the ‘traditionalist’  position I hold can be shown to be the true Catholic one, on the Church’s own self-understanding and according to her own rules. That is why I have adopted it.  The Catholic Church is in a crisis at present; that is precisely because those in positions of authority have tried to adopt  principles to which the Church is unalterably opposed.   Certain people are trying to change the Church’s teaching to accomodate Modernism, when they should have either changed their views or left the Church.    By necessity they are using mechanisms that are invalidated by the Church's own laws.   She does, however, have built-in mechanisms for rectifying these problems, and they are merely waiting to be utilised (unabmiguous re-stating of immutable teaching:  disciplinary proceedings against “contumacious”  dissenters, up to and including excommunication).  The pope has this power, but he is not using it at present.    No matter how long it takes, this is what will be done in the future, as it has in the past.   I see all this as an operation of the Holy Ghost.
--
ss16
REPLY 21-3-05 I am not reading anything into Psalm 19:7 where the text itself tells us that the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. It cannot refer merely to the law in the narrow sense of the word, since such is weak because dependent on human response (Romans 8:3) Other references (given twice above) to "the law" show it compasses the whole scripture. If it is "perfect" then it lacks nothing and therefore is sufficient - the main thrust of my argument. The problem here is not that I am reading something into the text. I put to you that the problem is that you won't accept what God has said in his word. Attacking your position and not you personally, you are bringing the Bible to your church's tradition, instead of bringing your tradition to the Bible. If you want to debate this proof text, then you must go further than making the allegation. You need to show why the law here cannot refer to the whole Bible, why it cannot be sufficient and then why the Lord should tell us that it is. And all that without reading your interpretation into it. Colin.

Posting 23Mar05:   You wrote(21-3-05): Other references (given twice above) to "the law"  show it compasses the whole scripture.
Reply:  Sorry, can you give me the references again?
‘The Law’ is a phrase used in various meanings, as I think we both agree.  I do not read that St Paul equates it with the written Scripture, restricting it to a written document:  “For we know that the law is spiritual” (Romans 7:14 ).  Nor that Ps. 18:7 (Vg) does so.  This sublime psalm is referring to the Will of God for Creation, not to the physical rolls of scripture in themselves. The Scriptures are the collection of inspired writings:  they are not, in and by themselves, “The Law”.  Of course the Scriptures are ‘profitable to our salvation’ (2 Timothy 3:14-17).
You write (21-3-05): You need to show why the law here (Ps 19:7) [ie Ps 18:7] cannot refer to the whole Bible...
Reply:  You seem to be making the assumption that, of the various possible meanings of ‘The Law’, Ps 18:7  refers to the collection of writings known as the King James Bible, and then insisting that I prove it is not?  For my part I think you are ‘wresting’ this text completely out of its context.  This concatenation of isolated biblical phrases separated by at least one thousand years, in support of a controversy that cannot be shown to have been in the minds of the writers, is exactly the kind of flawed reasoning against which we were warned (2 Peter 16).  [196 wds].
 

Not yet sent:  You wrote:   20-9-04: The inability to find the actual words quoted above does not disprove the doctrine. Otherwise we could not believe "The Glorious Trinity" yet we do. Reply: I am afraid this only proves the inconsistency and untenability of your position. There are indeed many things you hold, which are not written down word-for-word in Scripture (such as the authoritative list of books of the Bible, on which you claim to base your Faith). You are therefore following one particular Tradition of Interpretation. There have been many others. The fact that you claim yours to be self-consistent does not prove it to be correct, because other systems also can make this claim.

You wrote:
I put to you that the problem is that you won't accept what God has said in his word. Attacking your position and not you personally, you are bringing the Bible to your church's tradition, instead of bringing your tradition to the Bible.
Reply:  On the contrary, at this point I am not invoking tradition at all.  We are exploring what the words of Scripture, in and of themselves, actually mean.  I maintain that Sola Scriptura as a doctrine is not, after all, to be found in the Bible at all.

You write:  “you won't accept what God has said in his word.”
Reply: This would be a valid point for you to make if Psalm 18 had said,  “The Law of the Lord, as contained only and entirely in the following books:  Genesis, Exodus  [etc] to Apocalypse/Revelation, and understood without any reference to external Authority or Tradition ...is perfect”.  But it doesn’t.  In fact, the underlined words are what you have read into the text and appropriated to the words of God, which you then accuse non-SolaScriptura Christians of not accepting.  But these words are precisely what you cannot find in Scripture.

ss18
Not yet sent

Having disposed of the false claim that Sola Scriptura is an article of Faith to be found in Scripture,  let us proceed to the next point.  I will demonstrate that the Cork Free Presbyterian Church, just like every other organisation at all that calls itself a Christian Church,  is based upon Tradition no less than upon Scripture.
We cannot proceed without defining ‘Tradition’, or at least, explicating the various meanings that have been assigned to this word.
Firstly, we must agree upon the fact that this word, like nearly all others in the language (or in any other  language) can and has been used in different senses.  Hence in studying a text we must be able to provide proof that the meaning we take from the passage is the one the author intended or, if not, to explain why the author’s real but unintended meaning is significant.

However, since it would be appropriate to keep to Pastor Colin Maxwell’s Ground Rule of max. 200 wds/posting,  in the next few postings I will address issues already raised but not resolved.

[182 wds]

Reply:

Posting 12Apr05
I note that you are, as so often, resorting to attacking the Catholic position instead of defending your own.
You wrote: (11-4-05 )...  why doesn't the Lord actually use the words "fire of purgatory" in 1 Corinthians 3:15 (etc)?
Reply:  Perfectly simple.   We expect the Church of Christ to provide the Faith Once Given,  in perfect fidelity to her Founder:   the books of the Bible are a precious part of our tradition.  Commentary on the words of Scripture, from the Authority of the Catholic Church, has always been an integral part of our Faith, as indeed it was in Old Testament times (Midrash, Talmud).  It is common knowledge that the Scriptures do not provide a concise and ordered statement of the Content of the Faith.  We expect authorised interpretations.  Whereas the Bible-only sects have chosen to adopt the position that everything is fully contained in the Scripture.  Therefore you cannot have it both ways.   “Show it me in there!”
You wrote: (11-4-05 )...what are your reasons...for rejecting the interpretation that the term "law"  [refers]  ultimately to the whole Scripture...?
Reply:   What could be more obvious?  Firstly,  the very elementary point:  since you have not defined what is “the whole Scripture”  I am  asking you, now a second time, to define it, giving your authority.   Secondly,  “Law” in the Bible sometimes refers to the Spirit, sometimes the letter;  the text itself does not state in what way it is “perfect”:  therefore you cannot insist that your own interpretation is the only one.   MOF.

Posting:  20 Apr 05
 

Hi Colin. You write (19-4-05) :   I merely applied your own Why-didn't-God-say-this-instead-of-that? argument to your own position.
Reply:  My points are: [1] not that I am dictating to God what He should say (which God forbid)  but that you are reading something into the text that is not in fact there, and then ascribing it to God.  The Catholic takes the teaching of the Church as the primary source, of which the Scriptures are a component, therefore we are logically following our principles (even if these principles are wrong) when we propose a statement that is more explicit than the words of scripture:  I am pointing out that you cannot logically or consistently do this.
You write (19-4-05) : you have constantly run away from the challenge to define, produce and prove [Catholic traditon]  as apostolic.
Reply:  That is because I maintain that the first objection to Sola Scriptura is that it is literally unbiblical;  the doctrine is not at all stated in the Scriptures themselves, quite apart from the question of Tradition.  You have proved this, although you do not acknowledge it; you seem to base your position on [1] the quote from Timothy, which, as I showed, & you failed to answer, says nothing at all about "sufficiency" of a written book (and testifies to the canonicity of the Apocrypha!  But we’ll discuss that next); [2] Ps 18 (19), which is a general eulogy on the Law of the Lord - of course it is perfect!  Is God Himself imperfect?  But it absolutely does not equate this with the written book;  [3] a personal feeling of sufficiency, which as I pointed out, and you did not refute, proves nothing at all, as any religion anywhere could find adherents to make that claim.
You write: There is no controversy over the OT Books.
Reply:  With respect, but there is.  In the next posting I will provide some of the evidence that the books you call The Apocrypha were accepted as canonical by the Christian Church from the beginning.  Meanwhile, & for the 3rd time, what is your basis for accepting the collection of books in the King James Bible as the authoritative one, since you repudiate tradition?  mof

REPLY 19-4-05 We'll back to circles time again. You refuse to be convinced and I'm of the opinion we should leave it here. We have been at it now for 8 whole months and all we are doing is circling round and round and round. The things which are written are there that I might believe that Jesus is the Christ and that believing I might have life through His name (John 20:31) In this it has been successful and therefore what want or need I more? Whether your church accepts this or not is another matter and yet (with all due respect) not particularly worrying to me. Thanks for the debate. You conducted yourself with dignity. I maybe see you around town, although it has been a while since I saw you last. Colin.

Dear Pastor Colin,
I am sorry you have terminated the debate.  I also have greatly appreaciated that we have not allowed our debate to affect our relations as man-to-man.

I do not think we are going in circles; I think you are refusing, because unable, to answer the question.  If there had been an answer to these things from the sola scriptura side, I believe you would have given it.  If I ever get that website going, you might wish to engage a debate with me on Catholic tradition.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Additional note for the general reader:  I would state that this particular debate is very typical of  the "Sola Scriptura" controversy.  Please note that the Sola Scriptura advocate was unable to produce a clear and unambiguous answer to the very simple point:  "If your entire faith is contained in Scripture, then this fact itself must be contained in Scripture.  So show me where it is".  And secondly, "Furthermore, Scripture must contain a list of what constitutes Scripture:  what books are in and what books are out".   Instead of producing the texts, he produced about three "proof texts" which in fact say something different.

As Pastor Colin Maxwell has voluntarily withdrawn from the debate, I will finish the argument I am propounding in this webpage.
I cannot do better than recommend the following external website:

http://www.angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=688

The author, a convert from Bible-Only Protestantism, is writing to a friend, refuting the Sola Scriptura position.  The objection that Pastor Colin refused to concede is in fact now being accepted by a steady stream of tens of thousands of Bible-only Protestants in the USA in recent years.  After so many centuries, the truth is forcing itself upon their attention. Notice that, in our debate, Pastor Maxwell could not wait to begin attacking Catholic Tradition.  He began from the fourth posting, and kept it up to the bitter end. Now this is a valid subject for debate, but it was not the chosen topic.  Protestants cannot rush on to criticise the Catholic Faith before they have established the truth of their own position, and I had to remind Pastor Maxwell again and again not to change the subject.  One notable convert from Sola Scriptura is Dr Scott Hahn.  I paste this extract verbatim from the angelusonline webpage...

1) Sola Scriptura Contradicts Itself, Because It Is Not Taught in the Sacred Scriptures
The doctrine that the Bible alone is our only religious authority is not taught in the Bible. There is no book, chapter, or verse that demands book, chapter, and verse authority for every doctrine and practice. Don't get me wrong-I believe that the 27 letters which are in the New Testament are inspired. I believe that they are inerrant. I believe that they are authoritative. However, they never claim to be our only authority. The entire doctrine collapses because it contradicts itself.

Dr. Scott Hahn relates a telephone conversation he had with a professor when he was first discovering the Catholic faith:
To one professor I said, "Maybe I'm suffering from amnesia, but somehow I've forgotten the simple reasons why we believe the Bible is our sole authority.'
"Scott, what a dumb question!"
"Just give me a dumb answer."
"Scott," he responded. "You really can't demonstrate sola scriptura from Scripture. The Bible doesn't expressly declare that it is the Christian's only authority.’  [Dr. Scott Hahn. Rome Sweet Home. San Francisco, Ignatius Press: 1993.]

You see, Jediah, without the express command of the Bible to follow the Bible alone, sola scriptura becomes this monstrously illogical rule: All religious truth must come from the Bible alone, except for the truth that all religious truth must come from the Bible alone!

When Jesus promised His apostles the Holy Spirit, He told them that they would preach the truth to all peoples. He never said anything to them about writing any scriptures! Jesus never alluded in any way, shape, or form, to the fact that His followers would be bound solely to a book which would later be produced. The only time Jesus ever commanded anyone to write was when He appeared in a vision to St. John the Apostle and commanded him to write the seven letters which we know as his Apocalypse.

None of the books of the New Testament, with the exception of Apocalypse, ever claim to be inspired. (I agree, however, that in a couple of St. Paul's letters, he makes statements which may imply inspiration.) The biblical letters-supposedly our only authority, in your view-seldom comment on their own authority, but, in any case, never insist that they are the only authority.

I challenge you to provide a passage which tells us that we are limited to the New Testament. (By the way, you won't even find a passage that tells us there is a New Testament.)

What about the third chapter of II Timothy?
...And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, who can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Jesus Christ. All scripture, inspired by God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice. That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work [II Tim. 3:15-17].
 
You'll find that in context, this passage is speaking only about the Septuagint Old Testament. The Septuagint is the first translation of the Bible, the Greek translation of the Old Testament made from the Hebrew between 300 and 130 years before Christ. Ed]. St. Timothy was a Greek Jew, whose Scriptures were the 72 books of the Greek Old Testament. St. Paul speaks of the "holy scriptures" which Timothy had known from his "infancy." Those writings did not include the New Testament because the New Testament did not exist in Timothy's "infancy" and, in fact, would not exist in compiled form for another 300 years.
The Apostle then states that "all [of this] scripture," that is, all 72 of the Books of the Alexandrian Canon (which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament), is "inspired by God, [and] profitable ...." Notice that one word: "profitable." It does not say "sufficient." John Calvin, Thomas Campbell, and Roy Cogdill say "sufficient," but St. Paul says, "profitable."

What about Apocalypse 22:18?
For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book [Apoc. 22:18.]
Doesn't St. John say not to add to or take away from the Bible?-No, but even if he did, this would not prove sola scriptura. Catholics object to tampering with the Biblical text. When Jehovah's Witnesses pervert the Sacred Writ, the Catholic Church is angered, for she loves the Scriptures. However, forbidding to tamper with the text is not the same as calling the text your only authority. For example; if I were to lend you a dictionary, it would be wrong of you to rip out any of the pages or add your own definitions. But I wouldn't mind if you used other sources as well. In any case, all of these points are moot since the passage is talking only about the Book of the Apocalypse, and not the whole Bible.

If there's a passage which teaches sola scriptura, please let me know. If there's not, then the entire concept self-destructs. It fails its own test! The concept of sola scriptura is simply not in the scriptura.
 

To recap:  the commonest text cited by Bible-only Protestants is 2 Timothy 3:15-17:  "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

As they say nowadays, it doesn't take rocket science to see that, for it to genuinely support their case, the passage should have read  All scripture, which comprises the books Genesis, Exodus [etc] is given by inspiration of God, and is sufficient in itself for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." But it doesn't.

In fact, as I was just about to point out before Pastor Colin terminated the debate, the phrase "all scripture", addressed to Timothy, who is a bishop (see 1 Timothy) and obviously Greek (the name Timo-Theou literally means "the Fear of the Lord" in Greek) must refer to the Greek Bible that was in full use outside Judea itself:  and the Greek Bible contained the books the Protestants call the Apocrypha - including Macchabees, that has the famous verse "it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they be loosed from their sins".

The reference to 1 Timothy also brings to the fore the characteristic method of Bible-only Christians: they take tiny pieces of text and completely ignore the context.  This is such an elementary blunder that one can only marvel that this error has persisted for so long.

What happened, of course, is that by the Sixteenth Century the Catholic Church had allowed far too many abuses and slack practices to flourish.  In this atmosphere, the call to go back to the written word of Scripture alone must have had a plausible ring to it.  But the truth is that it is impossible to defend rigorously. It is not the fact that the Christians of the earliest centuries of the Church adopted a "Bible-only" faith:  in fact this was totally impossible because the Bible was not definitively settled as to its contens for centuries.  Whole barbarian nations adopted the Faith before any of them could read or write.
Thanks to the weakness of human nature, it was only after the damage was done that the Church properly addressed the abuses of the time.  But the Protestants, having entrenched themselves in their position, refused to return to the Catholic Church.  When pressed to defend their own position, they were unable to do so, except by quoting the handful of disconnected Biblical texts explored in this debate.

As for the list of books of the Bible, such a list does indeed exist - produced by the Catholic Church, from which all Protestants get their Bible in the first place.  All the scribes of the first centuries that have produced the text of the Bible that we accept were in communion with Rome - including the Greeks, for the braach with Rome did not come for many centuries after the scriptures were saved from oblivion by the good monks, Latin and Greek.

Beyond that, from the very beginning, note that he tried to divert the debate by attacking the Catholic position.  My advice to anyone debating this point with a Sola Scriptura advocate is:  do not be led off the debate by letting them change the subject.  Sola Scriptura might have sounded plausible in the heated atmosphere of the Sixteenth Century, but, after people had chosen sides, and when they were challenged on the above points, all they could come up with were the two or three passages quoted above, which do not say what they are claimed to say.  It does not take a Catholic to demolish the Sola Scriptura position: anybody who can read the Scriptures can see clearly where it falls down. Where one goes from there is another story.