Demonstrate that those ecclesial systems that follow "Scripture plus an Infallible Interpreter" are more unified in their beliefs than those ecclesial systems that follow Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura in this
usage will mean authority is vested in scripture alone as the final arbiter of
the faith. It will be taken as a strict
guideline. If an argument shows that
the guideline is violated those of that camp will then fall into the Scripture
plus camp. Once an arguement falls to
the Scripture plus camp the authority passes from Sola Scriptura to Scripture
plus as the final arbiter of the faith and the argument is completed. Those of that camp who then still adhere
that Scripture alone guides them are living a fantasy, refusing to admit to the
reality of their system.
To begin lets consider the
nature of what is the scripture. This
has been debated ad nauseum. But it I
will go through some of the arguments once again since it is useful to consider
regarding the nature of unity.
Scripture itself does not tell us what it is. For example there are at least 3 possible OT canons that are
legitimate. The Sadducee’s used only
the Pentateuch, as did the Samaritan and the other lost tribes of Israel. The Pharisee used the Pentateuch PLUS. The plus was the Prophets. With respect to the Prophets there were 2
camps, which were related to Israel’s captivity. After captivity some of Israel went back to Jerusalem and a
Hebrew canon developed and some to Alexandria where a Greek canon
developed. At this point there were at
least 3 OT canons. Pentateuch, Hebrew
Pentateuch plus prophets, and Septuagint are the contenders. The battle over what “was” the true canon
raged in Jewish circles even after the fall of Jerusalem up into the second and
third centuries. When the Jews from
Berea which was in Macedonia North of Greece checked the scripture to test
Paul’s authority, what canon did they examine?
[Acts 17:10] The brethren
immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived
they went into the Jewish synagogue.
[Acts 17:11] Now these
Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word
with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
[Acts 17:12] Many of them
therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
Most likely it was the
Septuagint. The point being this is a
favorite verse of the Sola Scripturist to justify the use of Scripture as the
final authority, yet it is at best unclear what Scripture these Berean’s used,
and most likely not the canon the Sola Scripturist uses. Hence on its face Sola Scriptura fails
because one is not even sure which books are in the bible. You can try to come to some understanding by
looking at “history”, but history is unclear, and regardless your source then
becomes Scripture plus. Therefore
taking you out of the camp of Sola Scriptura.
Another example of this
kind of problem becomes evident by considering the point of view of the KJV
1611 only crowd. These Protestants
since they are Sola Scripturists to a very high degree see the need for a
specific text to call the inspired word of God. They go though an argument that it is the translation of the
textus receptus that is in fact the correct bible, the other bible sources not
being the inspired word of God. The
textus receptus is Byzantine and is one of the most recent of the several
ancient texts that can be called reliable copies of the bible. These KJV only types correctly understand
that if Scripture alone is the rule there can be only one scripture that fits
the bill as the authentic word. Other
Protestants view the Greek or Hebrew as the most correct. These people find the Greek/Hebrew
interlinear to be the only bible that is authoritative. Others choose the amplified version to base
their faith on. Now we see on its face
an unavoidable division based on the nature of the bible itself. The bible is silent on what are the
authoritative books as well as what is the authoritative translation, and source
text. Hence you can know with no real
certainty what the truth is since the book provides no way to discern its
authority apart from an outside source.
Scripture Plus. This leads to a
more fundamental kind of disunity. To
disagree with a legitimate authority is a thing of pride and causes one kind of
disunity, a disunity based in the sin of Adam.
To be unable to even know what is authoritative is a more fundamental
disorder for that is not a thing of pride or personal interpretation, but a
thing of objective disorder. Sola
Scriptura therefore in its very nature is disordered and therefore is a primary
cause of disunity. Secondary causes of
disunity of course are misinterpretation of what the bible says. If you can’t even know which book holds the
objective truth, you are hardly able to therefore deduce with any surety any
truth from that book. You are left
guessing.
Next we can look at what
the bible says about the need for an outside source. That is to say a magisterial teacher to provide the context
within which a certain doctrine or dogma is to be understood. A chapter from the scripture that approaches
this concern is the first chapter of 2 Peter.
Recall that Peter is the prime among the Apostles; Jesus’ pick to
Sheppard his brothers, and the Rock upon Jesus built his Church.
[2 Pet 1:1] Simeon Peter,
a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of
equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus
Christ:
[2 Pet 1:2] May grace and
peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
[2 Pet 1:3] His divine
power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through
the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,
[2 Pet 1:4] by which he
has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you
may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and
become partakers of the divine nature.
[2 Pet 1:5] For this very
reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with
knowledge,
[2 Pet 1:6] and knowledge
with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with
godliness,
[2 Pet 1:7] and godliness
with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.
What is the first part
saying? It is speaking in fact about
unity. It says those who the letter is
addressed to have obtained a faith that is of equal standing with the faith of
Peter. That is an absolute statement of
solidarity. So the recipients are of
precisely the same faith as Peter. He
goes on to how this faith is to be manifest leading to the unity of brotherly
love as the highest in the aspect of this unity. Not brotherly love in the natural sense but in the order of Grace
and Peace. That is to say not brotherly
love that is self serving but love that is self sacrificing, the same love
Jesus showed.
[2 Pet 1:8] For if these
things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful
in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[2 Pet 1:9] For whoever
lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was
cleansed from his old sins.
[2 Pet 1:10] Therefore,
brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do
this you will never fall;
[2 Pet 1:11] so there will
be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ.
He further specifies that
necessity of these actions in order that entrance into then kingdom will be
richly provided. He who does these
things will be assured of not falling.
He who fails to do these things will be assured of falling, and not
achieving rich entrance into heaven.
Note what Peter says next
[2 Pet 1:12] Therefore I
intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are
established in the truth that you have.
I intend always to
remind you of these things. Though they
are known and established in truth.
Peter as the Rock and
Primary apostle has both the power and the authority to provide for the ability
to provide this eternal reminder, (at least until the end of time) of what is
the truth.
[2 Pet 1:12] Therefore I
intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are
established in the truth that you have.
[2 Pet 1:13] I think it
right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
[2 Pet 1:14] since I know
that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed
me.
[2 Pet 1:15] And I will
see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these
things.
He further elucidates that
he intends to provide a means to know the precise truth even after he has
died. That is past his personal
apostolic tenure, he intends to provide a means to know the precise
interpretation and understanding of what is known.
[2 Pet 1:16] For we did
not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[2 Pet 1:17] For when he
received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by
the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
[2 Pet 1:18] we heard this
voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
He is saying that his
knowledge is not based on speculation or analysis, but that his knowledge is
based on eyewitness. His knowledge of
the reality of Jesus is not based on the book alone. It is based on the fact he saw Jesus as the Son of God at the
transfiguration.
[2 Pet 1:19] And we have
the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as
to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star
rises in your hearts.
We have the prophetic word
made more sure. It is his experience as
the Rock that makes the exact nature of what the bible says more sure. It is Peter that anchors the exact nature of
the reality of Jesus across all ages.
It is Peter and the “WE” from the verse above, that make what the bible
says more sure.
Who gets to interpret the
prophetic word? That is who has the
authority to interpret the bible? Is it
the individual?
[2 Pet 1:20] First of all
you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's
own interpretation,
The answer to this is
NO. The individual has no way to
interpret the prophetic word.
[2 Pet 1:21] because no
prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit
spoke from God.
So who are these men moved
by the Holy Spirit spoke from God?
[John 20:19] On the
evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the
disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
[John 20:20] When he had
said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad
when they saw the Lord.
[John 20:21] Jesus said to
them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send
you."
[John 20:22] And when he
had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy
Spirit.
Note who is doing the
speaking here. God in the person of
Jesus.
These are the men Peter is
talking about in 2 Peter 1:21
[Acts 1:1] In the first
book, O The-oph'ilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,
[Acts 1:2] until the day
when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to
the apostles whom he had chosen.
[Acts 1:3] To them he
presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them
during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.
[Acts 1:4] And while
staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for
the promise of the Father, which, he said, "you heard from me,
[Acts 1:5] for John
baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy
Spirit."
[Acts 1:6] So when they
had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore
the kingdom to Israel?"
[Acts 1:7] He said to
them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has
fixed by his own authority.
[Acts 1:8] But you shall
receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my
witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama'ria and to the end of the earth."
Who are these men
commanded by the Holy Spirit? The 12
[Acts 1:15] In those days
Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a
hundred and twenty), and said,
[Acts 1:16]
"Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke
beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who
arrested Jesus.
[Acts 1:17] For he was
numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
[Acts 1:20] For it is
written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let
there be no one to live in it';
and `His office let another
take.'
Even though Judas had
died, his office remained, and was taken by another.
Now you may argue that the
office could only be fulfilled by one who walked with Jesus, and there could
only be 12 apostles.
[Rom 1:1] Paul, a servant
of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God
The thirteenth apostle
would prove you wrong. Paul did not
walk with Jesus during his life, yet he shared in the expansion of the
hierarchy. Further Paul is most
prolific in his activity as one of the men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from
God. But he did not receive his share
in the apostleship until he had hands laid upon him. Consider further the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch.
[Acts 8:27] And he rose
and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can'dace, queen
of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to
worship
[Acts 8:28] and was
returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
[Acts 8:29] And the Spirit
said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
[Acts 8:30] So Philip ran
to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you
understand what you are reading?"
[Acts 8:31] And he said,
"How can I, unless some one guides me?" And he invited Philip to
come up and sit with him.
The Spirit said to
Philip a man moved by the Holy Spirit
spoke from God. Was Philip a free agent
or did he have some share in the office?
[Acts 6:5] And what they
said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith
and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch'orus, and Nica'nor, and Ti'mon,
and Par'menas, and Nicola'us, a proselyte of Antioch.
[Acts 6:6] These they set
before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.
He was a man the apostles
laid hands upon. He shared in the
teaching authority of the office of the apostles. This was a new ministry created apart from that which Jesus had
created. So the apostles had the
authority to create the hierarchy that was needed as the Church grew. It shows that Peter had both the authority
and the means and responsibility as the Rock to:
[2 Pet 1:12] Therefore I
intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and
are established in the truth that you have.
And his means, is
precisely contained the offices that he created and the resulting
magesterium. Which always provides the
means for the correct way to interpret Scripture. By means of men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. This ultimately then becomes Sola Scriptura
proof that it MUST be Scripture plus.
Since the argument is based on Scripture Alone.
Further looking at the
nature of the magisterium you see encapsulated in them the fullness of the
ministerial priesthood, for it is from them that ministerial priests get their
authority to perform the sacraments, especially transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that the substance
is transformed into the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of the Lord. Since these are always one and the same, it
is never a new presentation. It is in
substance the exact same presentation.
That is to say the Eucharist I receive is precisely the same Eucharist my
father received, and his father received, and his father received, all the way
back to the Eucharist that Peter received on the day of the Last Supper.
This is the ultimate in
unifying force since it is the once and for all re-memberance. Of the sacrifice of the Lord. You may for example say is there disunity in
the Novus Ordo vs the Tridentine Order.
However you must realize that there are over 20 separate rites of the
Church each with its own liturgical expression. It is not the order that is unifying it is the Eucharist that is
confected. The order is in fact the
fullness of expression of the central tenant.
That Christ dies once and for all.
Once and for all time once and for all places and once and for all
People. Once and for all does not mean
once and only once. It is far more
inclusive than that. Hence at the
center of the pinnacle of worship as expressed across all people is the once
and for all sacrifice. When man
remembers he calls to mind an image of reality. That is correctly ordered to man, for he is but himself an
image. When God remembers as he does in
the mass, God remembers in terms of reality.
Hence what becomes present by the action of God’s remembering is the
reality not just an image or a symbol.
Do this in remembrance of me as an action of God means that the members
are literally brought back into reality.
Further if you consider
that this sacrifice is begins anew every hour of every day somewhere across the
face of the earth, there is perpetual remembrance in all time, until the end of
time. Again this is the ultimate in
unity. This is something that can only
be accomplished by men. A book, even a
book as great as the God breathed bible, in no way can approach the nature of
this unity. How do you know the Catholic
Church is the true Church? It is by
this sacrament. Mormons don’t have it,
evangelicals don’t have it, JW’s don’t have it. Only those with valid Bishops have it, the Catholic, Orthodox,
and those of the ancient apostolic churches.
In fact ľ of all Christianity believes in the real presence and has
maintained some aspect of apostolic succession. In fact the real issue of disunity is not in the doctrine of Sola
Scriptura, but in the protestant tendency to reductionism in the faith. The protestant is obsessed with what is the
least you can do, or be, and still claim salvation. Faith alone, Bible alone, Juridical declarations of justification
instead of actual justification, Eternal Election, each of these have at its
root a desire to compromise the holiness of God, with sin. Each of these in its essence is a way to
claim the justice of God and at the same time hang onto the dung heap
underneath. The real issue is the protestant
desire to eject the priesthood and the sacramental covenantal character of the
true religion for something that is less.
Something that is smaller.
Something that is less intimate.
Something that shrinks who God is down to a size that is more
manageable. God’s presence is not real
in the Eucharist it is merely symbolic.
It is merely spiritual. A
ministerial priesthood is not needed but rather a nation of priests… For anyone
who subscribes to this theory I suggest you refer to the fate of Korah in the
16th chapter of the book of Numbers.
There is nothing in Protestantism that can come close to the unity
provided by this sacrament.
The proof is in the
counting. 30,000 protestant sects, who
claim authority based on Sola Scriptura.
A handful of Catholic, Orthodox, and Apostolic churches, some in schism
but always in Eucharistic unity, a unity based in the office of Bishop, in the
magesterium, the same as it ever was.