I'm a subscriber to John Martinogni's newsletter and have taken the time to look at your website. In logic the principle of non-contradiction states that what is "A" cannot both be "A" and not be "A" at the same time. When Christians disagree on doctrine we face the certainty that one of us is necessarily believes that which is not truth, aka error. Of course there is no guarantee that one of us believes that which is true. Therefore, we could both be in error when we disagree. Looking in the yellow pages under church should be a very humbling experience for all of us who claim to be disciples of Christ.
I won't bore you at length with details, I'm sure you are a busy person, but my family is very confused religiously. I have a non-trinitarian Christian brother (www.theway.org) a Catholic mother, and no one else in my immediate family believes anything which would even remotely hint at Christian unity. Myself, I left the church after being convinced by my non-trinitarian brother to believe Sola Scriptura. I rejected much of the church's teaching. I have requested the insight of many believers of Christianity and even some of other faiths. They have helped shaped my beliefs to this day. But nothing has shaped my own beliefs more than the bible itself. The bible is why I'm a Roman Catholic completely loyal to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The fact that Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the bible is primarily why?
The earliest Christians, those who witnessed Christ's teachings in Galilee, or who witnessed the teaching of the eleven apostles didn't have a single New Testament writing. Most bible scholars today say the first NT letter written was 1 Thes in about 51 AD, most likely about 18 years after Christ's Ascension into heaven. If Sola Scriptura is true then the earliest Christians had no way to know truth since there wasn't a NT. The only Scriptura was the OT. Doesn't Sola Scriptura presuppose that Christ abandoned his earliest followers without providing them with a way to know the truth with certainty? If Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, isn't His teaching consistent to all Christians at all times and all places, whether its Judea in AD 48 or AD 2008? Why would I be expected to be taught differently than the earliest Christians?
Even more important is the question what is the Scripture in the first place? Why should I believe that Philemon is God-breathed yet the Acts of Peter is not? The bible doesn't tell me, it's silent on the issue. So why is it wrong for me as a Christian to believe that Philemon is not God-breathed, but say, the Acts of Peter is? What authority would the Christian appeal to answer this question. For the believer of Sola Scriptura, the Scripture is silent on the issue,.
I am going to claim to you that this email I am writing to you is God-breath, inspired, inerrant, and the infallible Holy Word of God. Would you believe it? Why not? The bible doesn't claim that Philemon is God-breathed and it does not refute that the Acts of Peter is God-breathed yet you believe that Philemon is God-breathed and the Acts of Peter is not? Why? There is no Scriptural foundation for this belief. The book of Philemon makes no claim of itself to be God-breathed and no other book in the bible claims that Philemon is or is not God-breathed either. Yet my email makes that claim and I'm sure you'd reject that notion entirely. Why? Isn't that an inherent contradiction? You claim the Philemon is God-breathed but it makes no claim for itself to be God-breath, yet you believe it is. My email does make such a claim for itself yet I'm sure that you believe my email is not God-breathed. What authority would you appeal to in order to refute the claim that my email makes?
Here's the point of the question. Even if each individual book in the bible claimed to be God-breathed (self authenticating) or each book in the bible claimed divine inspiration for other books in the bible (Romans authenticated 1st John which authenticated Genesis, etc) it still wouldn't be enough to stand on its own authority. You would still require an extra-biblical authority to testify to the God-breathed nature of the individual texts, and their compilation in their entirety. Much in the same why that I would need an authority outside of my email to substantiate it's claim to divine origin. All analogies aside, what is that authority which testifies to the God-breathed nature of the bible and identifies for us which books are in the bible and which are not? You claim that the bible should include 66 books and 66 books only, while I claim that the bible should include 73 books and 73 books only. Using the Scriptures alone, let's find out which one of our beliefs subsists in Truth? And how do we know that we aren't both wrong, that there should be 69.5 books, or 84 books or 96 books in the bible? As a side note the canon of the Scriptures was unchallenged from approximately AD 400 until the Protestant Reformation.
Finally, 1 Timothy 3:15 claims that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Jesus also claims that He is the truth in John 14:6. Therefore the church is the pillar and ground or foundation of Jesus Christ? At first glance that seems absurd. How can a human organization be the basis (Strong's KJV bible concordance uses basis as another word for ground) of Jesus Christ? Yet if the church is the body of Christ as thought clearly in the Scriptures (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:24). Can Christ's body be the basis of Christ? Absolutely. In this context it's easy to see how the church can be the pillar and ground of truth.
This also implies that the Church, being God's body, has a divine dimension to it's existence. That's very scary as we are all sinners and fall short of the Grace of God, Bishops of Rome too, yet through being born again we become members of Christ's body, despite our sinfullness. If God's Church has a divine dimension to it, then wouldn't it have to be infallible in it's teachings, after all, error or imperfection cannot exist in an infinite God's body. Also, God can neither deceive nor be deceived. If God can't deceive us then He must provide a way for all Christians at all times to know with certainty what the truth is. If he didn't, He would indeed be deceiving us since we could never know with certainty that what we believe was not error and therefore opposed to God. Jesus is even so bold as to tells us we will know the Truth and the Truth will set us free. How can we know with certainty that we know the Truth if we don't know with certainty that we know the truth? The logic doesn't follow. If we can't identify the bible with certainty how can we know that some of what we believe is error.
If we don't need any authority outside of Scripture, then why didn't Christ ensure that the NT scripture existed before he Ascended into Heaven? If we don't need any authority outside of Scripture, then where does Scripture teach this? Chapter and verse please. If we don't need any authority outside of Scripture then where does Scripture tell us what Scripture is?
Dr Joe, as I mentioned before whenever two Christians disagree on doctrine one must necessarily believe error, it's very possible and highly likely that both do. That said I'm very open to your thoughts on the issue of Sola Scriptura. However, I must know if you believe that your teachings are protected from error. If you can believe error and I can believe error, then why should I believe your interpretations of Scripture over my own? What assurance can you give me that your interpretations subsist in Truth while mine subsist in error?
No comments:
Post a Comment