The following questions are asked by Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, in one of his recent newsletters published on his website. The questions challenge the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. There are three general areas in which Martignoni disputes Sola Scriptura: Logic, History, and Scripture. This post will answer Martignoni’s five questions from the perspective of logic.
1. Where did the Bible come from?
We believe the New Testament was orally preached to the first believers. The Apostle Paul wrote letters to various churches, which were compiled as early as the late first or early second century and circulated among Christians. Along with the Pauline Corpus the four Gospels were compiled by the mid second century along with First Peter, Jude, Revelation, and two of John’s letters.
It is certain that 22 of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament were well rooted in the ancient Christian church of the first two centuries. There is no record of these 22 books ever being disputed or doubted until 150 years later in the fourth century when some disputed the book of Jude. Even if we move Jude out of the list of undisputed books, we still have 21 books of the New Testament that were considered authoritative Scripture in the early church.
2. What authority do we rely on for our belief that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, Word of God?
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) states that the Bible is the only infallible authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. It does not claim to come from the Bible as though the apostles could have known the scope of its contents. Their calling was to lay the foundation of the church and in so doing left their writings to continue their work in these last days.
Nevertheless, if a person believes the Gospel message and puts their trust in the Bible as the word of God, it does not mean they profess the entire Bible to be inerrant or even inspired. Every believer who draws closer to Christ will gain understanding and insight into the more difficult areas of the Bible. Gaining biblical understanding, however, is not something that is accomplished in isolation. The body of Christ has structure and organization. “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:11-13)
Some things may never be understood to the point of an individual being able to honestly say that the Bible is inerrant in its entirety. As the formally blind beggar said to the Pharisees who accused Jesus of being a sinner, “Whether he is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I know, that though I was blind, now I see.” (Jhn. 9:25) When believers draw closer to Christ they begin to understand the harmony of the Scriptures, which in turn enables them to gain trust in its contents – even if they know little or nothing of its history.
As Christians mature in the faith it becomes evident that the authority of the Bible is God Himself. When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Son of the living God, Jesus answered saying, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Mat. 16:17) And so it is with all who put their faith in Christ!
3. Is there a list of books in the Bible, which tells us which books should be in the Bible?
This question is obviously meaningless. Catholic apologists formulate it in order to set up what they believe to be a trap of contradiction for Sola Scriptura. Unfortunately for them, Sola Scriptura claims nothing of the kind. It would be a waist of time for any Catholic to use this tactic. Sola Scriptura is not a biblical doctrine; it is a doctrine born out of the Reformation to protect faithful Christians from the corrupt traditions and brutal spiritual oppression of the Catholic hierarchy.
4. What authority decided the disputes among Christians as to which books should and should not be considered inspired Scripture?
Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, history has provided no evidence that twenty of them were ever disputed. These twenty books alone, which include the four Gospels, all of Paul’s epistles except Hebrews, Acts, First Peter and First John are enough to validate the Bible as authoritative. The remaining seven books were scrutinized thoroughly in the early church and found to be acceptable. Anyone familiar with the Bible can determine for himself or herself whether these books harmonize with the other twenty. I don’t think one would find many believers who find them objectionable.
5. What authority prevents me from disagreeing with the canon of Scripture as we currently have it and putting my own Bible together?
The only people in history who have ever done that are those who hold themselves as their authority. Our authority is Christ!
October 21, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
Responding to your answer to question 1: You didn’t mention the Old Covenant at all. But you missed the point (I suspect deliberately) of the question. Where did the Bible come from? Who compiled the list and decided that they were canonical? The answer to this question is that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, and those in communion with him, decided which books belonged and which did not. This, by no means, means that other books don’t have value.
Responding to your response to question 2: The point of the question is that, if you believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, then you can’t believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, because it isn’t in the Bible. The answer to the question is that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope and those in communion with him, guided as they are by the Holy Spirit and protected from error, decided which books were canonical and which were not.
Responding to your response to question 3: This question again uncovers the paradox of Sola Scriptura, because there was no table of contents.
Responding to your response to question 4: This question is not just aimed at the Bible, it’s aimed at general disputes between bishops, etc. The answer is, again, the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.
Responding to your response to question 5: Well, then the founder of the Protestant branch of Christianity, Martin Luther himself, who held that three or four books should be taken away from the canon, was wrong, which means that breaking away from the Catholic Church was wrong. He took it upon his own authority to break from the church. And by looking around your blog, I see you take it on your own authority to decide what scripture means, when Jesus was speaking figuratively and when he wasn’t, and so on. Good luck with that.
October 21, 2009 at 10:30 pm |
The earliest council to address the canonical list is probably Hippo in 393, but certainly Carthage in 397 finalized it. Just about every Catholic I have encountered on this topic is under the impression that the council of Carthage decided which books belong in the Bible and which do not. In actuality, all the council did was close the canon that already existed and forbade the reading in church of any writings outside the accepted canon. There is a great deal of history with regards to the formation of the canon of Scripture, and to say that oral tradition is responsible for its authority as Scripture is simply false and far from the facts of history.
In the apostolic church the Pauline letters circulated singularly, but as early as the beginning of the second century they circulated collectively, and with them the epistle to the Hebrews. This collection is known as the Pauline Corpus. The Chester Beatty manuscript is the oldest surviving copy. It did not include the three Pastoral Epistles (1, 2Timothy and Titus), but did include Hebrews.
Of the 27 canonical books, Irenaeus quoted from 23 of them in his treatise against heresies in the second century. And Eusebius provides an account of early second century Christians not only evangelizing orally, but delivering written books of the Gospels to people who had not heard the Good News. And in 1740 historian Ludovico Muratori published his Muratorian Fragment containing a list of New Testament books dating to around 170 A.D.
The Muratorian Fragment contains the oldest list of canonical books of the New Testament recognized in the Roman church at the time. The list includes the four Gospels (though only Luke and John are actually present on the fragment, the Gospels of Mathew and Mark are assumed have been mentioned before them because the first completed sentence on the fragment is “The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke”). The compiler comments that Luke’s authority is derived from his association with Paul. He claims that Luke was Paul’s legal expert, which when understood within the context of the Roman world implies that Luke was part of Paul’s staff and thus issued his writing with his own name but in accordance with Paul’s opinion (F.F. Bruce). With regards to this opinion it is reasonable to suppose that the explanation for Luke writing Paul’s Gospel originated in Rome, perhaps about the time this list was compiled.
Besides the four Gospels, the list includes as acceptable all of Paul’s epistles (but not Hebrews, which incidentally in Rome, was not recognized as Pauline until the fourth century), the Apocalypse of John (Revelation), Jude and two epistles of John. In all, 22 of the 27 books of our New Testament are presented in this list as acceptable in the church. The apocalypse of Peter was also mentioned as acceptable but not by all. And oddly the Wisdom of Solomon also appears on the list as acceptable.
The books of our New Testament not mentioned are, 1 and 2 Peter, third John, Hebrews and James. There are also interesting exclusions such as the Shepherd of Hermas. The Shepherd of Hermas was read regularly in the churches but was rejected because, the compiler says, “It was written quite recently in our own time.” This is interesting because it shows us that the early Christian leadership compiled Scripture, not based on oral tradition, but on evidence of authenticity. The four Gospels and the Pauline Corpus were never brought into question because they were deeply rooted in the catholic (universal) church and recognized by all as authoritative. But the absence of the five books of our New Testament from the Muratorian Fragment poses an even bigger problem for Martignoni and other adherents of oral tradition. If indeed the bishops in Rome could determine by oral tradition, which books belong to the canon of Scripture, these five books could not have been missing from the list because the same oral tradition is said to have reached the council of Carthage, which included them.
In Eusebius’ time (early fourth century), the final number of accepted books had still not been established. Eusebius lists James, Jude, 2Peter, 2John and 3John as disputed but recognized by many. He lists the Apocalypse of John as generally accepted but rejected by some. The composer of the Muratorian Fragment states that the Apocalypse of John, Jude and two of John’s epistles were accepted in the catholic church.
If oral tradition is responsible for the collection of accepted books, it has proven itself unreliable to say the least. Eusebius, however, describes something far different than oral tradition when he comments on the compilation of Scripture in his own time:
“But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers— we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.
And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.”
(Hist. Eccl. 3:25:6)
The ecclesiastical tradition, used to determine the accepted writings, was clearly not oral tradition. Writings, whether accepted or rejected, were scrutinized and compared to orthodox ecclesiastical writings. Notice that Eusebius condemns the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. The compiler of the Muratorian list also excluded these writings by saying, “the Acts of all the apostles have been written in one book.” However, he claims that Luke only recorded the things that took place in his presence and, therefore, omitted the passion of Peter (the account of Peter being crucified upside-down) and Paul’s departure to Spain. Both these stories are detailed in the Acts of Peter, a book deemed unworthy and absurd by Eusebius and ignored by the ecclesiastical writers, yet considered factual accounts by many in our day.
By the time Eusebius wrote his history the canon of New Testament Scripture was almost completed. In 330, just after establishing his new capital in Constantinople, Constantine requested that Eusebius provide 50 copies of the Christian Scriptures. Unfortunately we are not told what books were included in Eusebius’ New Testament, but there is little doubt based on his writings that it contained the 27 books of our current New Testament.
In his thirty-ninth festal letter, announcing the date of Easter in 367 AD, Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, presented the list of New Testament books exactly as we have them today, but not in the same order. He was the first in history to produce a written list of the 27 books. Canon 60 of the regional council of Laodicea in 363 also lists the books of the New Testament, but excludes Revelation. Canon 60, however, may be a later addition, as it is absent from some of the Laodicean manuscripts.
October 22, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Which only goes to show that “Sola Scriptura”: isn’t in the Bible, and so contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
If it took 300 years to get a written canon, what was scripture? It was both oral and written. Brian, we don’t say that Tradition has more weight than scripture. You and many of your bretheren in Protestant circles seem to believe there’s only one way something can be read. You follow and either/or philosophy which just wasn’t followed in the early church. Some things have many levels of meaning. Catholics believe in ‘both/and’.
October 22, 2009 at 9:21 pm |
C’mon David! Did you not read the article? You are giving me the Catholic definition of Sola Scriptura. I did not describe it the way Catholics define because Catholics define it wrong.
It did not take 300 years to get a written canon, please read before commenting.
October 23, 2009 at 12:49 pm |
So, it’s ok for you to see the Catholic Church through non-Catholic eyes, but it’s not ok for me to see whatever undefined faith you belong to through Catholic eyes? Besides, I’ve been on the other side, and know what I speak or write. If you want to tell me what Sola Scriptura is for you, be my guest. And when I tell you what Catholics believe from a Catholic point of view, don’t try to tell me that that’s not true. I don’t say that your faith is completely wrong, in fact, it’s probably almost all right (probably, since I don’t know what faith you are).
Did you see the little 2 letter word “if” in my post? I know it didn’t take 300 years or more, that’s just when it was defined. Evidence shows what books were held canonical and which were not, mostly all in agreement, within a generation or two of Jesus’ death. By the way, the Protoevangelium of James probably falls into that same timeframe. :)
October 23, 2009 at 5:25 pm |
David it sounds like your doing a 180* turn on what you said in your previous post. Before you said, “If it took 300 years to get a written canon, what was scripture?” Now you say, “I know it didn’t take 300 years or more, that’s just when it was defined.” Your thoughts seem to be a little unorganized and you really do seem to be following other apologists (your both/and idea).
Also, yes the Protoevangelium of James did surface around 150 AD, but what’s the point? It was obviously heretical and as such was not accepted by the churches.
October 23, 2009 at 7:53 pm |
Nice observation David, I didn’t catch David’s contradiction.
David the Catholic,
I understand the Catholic doctrines quite well. I was a Catholic most of my life. I have studied, and continue to study church history meticulously. My knowledge of the early church comes from reading the actual writings, editors / translator’s notes, scholarly reviews, and credible historians. I do not gather my information from other websites that I Googled some key words to find. I think you will find out what I am talking about when you receive my next response in our discussion on your blog.
For anyone who is interested, David (the Catholic) and I are having a discussion on his blog at: Open Letter to Non-Catholics
The discussion is a little slow since David likes to moderate every comment. There is also another “Dave” in a discussion there, but it is totally irrelevant to ours.
October 26, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
Brian, the non-Catholic, David the Catholic takes his time because he has a family life, works, and worships God whenever possible. Maybe you’re a full time blogger, but I’m not.
Brian, if you were Catholic, you would know that the Catholic Church only defines doctrine when said doctrine is called into question. For example, the early Church believed in the doctrine of the Trinity long before it was ever defined, but defined it when that doctrine was called into question. This is also true for the canon of scripture. It was held pretty much intact for a long time before it was written down in council.
I know my faith, Brian, it’s written all over the place because it’s the true faith. Others may be more eloquent or say things more precisely than I can. Point is, I don’t make Catholic doctrine up. On the other hand, you seem to have pieced together your own little religion, and thus you can proclaim yourself like the other guy on my blog. By interpreting Catholic doctrine incorrectly, you make yourself your own pope.
October 26, 2009 at 8:45 pm |
That is an interesting way to look at things David, but it certainly isn’t true that Roman Catholic dogma is always defined when it is called into question. The easiest dogmas to point out are the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Papal Infallibility, and the Assumption of Mary. These doctrines had all been called into question long before there time, and had no real significance as to when they were defined. Another interesting thing to note is that even Roman Catholics never acknowledged that the pope was infallible before 1870, no matter what. Whether it be that he is infallible in his own life, or in cases of faith and morals ex cathedra, this was something that had never existed before Pius IX.
But if you wish to follow a pope, than you are free to do so. I on the other hand prefer to follow Jesus who is our only infallible leader in everything.
October 26, 2009 at 11:02 pm |
David the Catholic,
I didn’t mean our discussion was slow in that way, I just meant that because you moderate (which is your right and privilege) the discussion appears in spurts. I would never criticize anyone for the amount of time they take to respond. Take as much time as you want J
You are making a mistake when you refer to the ante-Nicene church as the “Catholic Church.” Now if you would have said, “catholic church” I would have accepted that. The word catholic simply means, “universal.” Early church writers would often use the term to distinguish the true church from the heretics.
You are being misleading when you say that doctrine was only defined when called into question. That is a common Catholic apologist assertion used to defend non-apostolic doctrines. And as David of MI pointed out, that assertion is disputed by the facts of history.
Tertullian was the first to describe the Trinity the way he did and derive a name for it: Personae, una Substantia (three Persons, one Substance). And interestingly, Tertullian showed just how evident that is in the Scriptures.
“But Scripture is not in such danger that you need to come to its help with your reasoning, lest it should seem inconsistent with itself. It is quite right both when it lays down that there is one God and when it shows that there are two, Father and Son, and it is self-sufficient.” (Against Praxeas)
The trinity was well understood and documented as far back as the first century. Nobody is buying the lame argument that the lack of evidence for your Sacred Traditions is due to the lack of them being called into question.
Please show me where I interpreted Catholic doctrine incorrectly? I back up everything I say. I am sure it helps you to feel better by comparing me to the other guy on your blog, but I think you know better than that.
October 27, 2009 at 2:41 pm |
Brian, Catholic is catholic. It means the universal Church that Christ founded. Unfortunately, right now, it doesn’t include Protestants completely, because Protestants don’t trust Jesus completely. They don’t believe everything he said.
You call it lack of evidence, but I say the evidence speaks volumes. And you haven’t proven me wrong.
I don’t disparage people to make me feel better Brian. I don’t need to do that.
October 27, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
David, catholic means “universal,” period.
Yesterday catholic meant “embracing all,” today it means “the universal church Christ found.” What will it mean tomorrow?
When you say we don’t believe everything Jesus said, is that because you know of things Jesus said that are not in the Bible? Thus far you haven’t pointed to anything Jesus said that isn’t found in the Bible. Can you provide something…please?
October 27, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
Brian, do words have multiple meanings? Let me answer, yes, they do. Broken down, The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos)”. What’s the real difference between universal and embracing all? Nada.
When I say you don’t believe everything Jesus said, I’m talking about your interpretation. You don’t believe that, when Jesus said that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, he was speaking literally. But you interpret other things literally, that aren’t literal, like Jesus having siblings.
October 27, 2009 at 5:27 pm |
Okay so it’s back to meaning “embracing all.” It can mean whatever you want it to mean David.
So when it comes to what Jesus said, it’s your interpretation verses mine. So, for the sake of fair-minded people who might read this, I have shown in great detail how the early church fathers did not interpret Jesus literally in John’s Gospel on the bread of life discourse. You have only your and your church’s interpretation. Let the folks decide.
October 27, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
Brian, it means what it means.
And no, it’s not my interpretation vs yours, it’s the Catholic Church’s interpretation = apostles interpretation vs yours. “I only have me and my 2000 year old church….:/
You say that the early church fathers (what church were they the fathers of, Brian?) did not interpret literally, but who did, Brian? Those around Jesus. Some of his disciples were disturbed by what he said, and went back to their previous lives. If Jesus was anxious for followers, don’t you think he would have amended what he said and called them back? Instead, he turned to his apostles and asked them if they were going to leave him as well.
Usually, when someone asked Jesus what he meant by something, he explained it to them in words they could understand, usually parables. There’s no parable here…
October 27, 2009 at 10:47 pm |
David, you commented on the Bread of Life Discourse article on this blog, which presumably means you read it, but maybe forgot what you read. I addressed the unbelieving disciples in that article. If you want to know my exegesis on the matter you can go there and read it. In addition, there is a great deal of information regarding what the early church believed about the Eucharist in my article, “Early Church Fathers Refute Real Presence.” I know you do not agree with my conclusions, but please at least read the articles before commenting. It will make me feel like I didn’t totally waste my time.