"What's Your Authority?"
This is nothing fancy, just a little script you
might learn from. In Catholic Answers’ seminars we try to emphasize the
point that you should always demand that a missionary who comes
to your door first establish his authority for what he is going to tell
you, and only then proceed to discuss the particular issues he has in mind.
By "authority," we don’t mean his personal or academic
credentials. We mean his authority to claim he can rightly interpret the
Bible. The missionary (unless he is a Mormon, of course, in which case
his authority is the Book of Mormon) will always claim to fall back
on the authority of Scripture. "Scripture says this" or "Scripture proves
that," he will tell you.
So before you turn to the verses he brings up,
and thus to the topic he brings up, demand that he demonstrate a few things.
First, ask him to prove from the Bible that the
Bible is the only rule of faith (if he’s an Evangelical or Fundamentalist
Protestant he holds to the Reformation theory of sola scriptura—the
Bible alone).
Second, have him tell you how he knows which books
belong in the Bible in the first place.
And third, require that he prove to you both that
he has the authority to interpret the Bible for you (remember that his
doctrines will almost always be drawn from interpretations of the
sacred text rather than the words themselves) and that his interpretations
will always be accurate.
Imagine the conversation goes something like this:
"Good afternoon, neighbor. May I share a few words
of Christian truth with you?"
"Sure," you say. "Where do you get this truth?"
"From the Bible, of course."
"That’s your authority? The Bible?"
"Yes, it’s the only authority for Christians."
"Can you prove that from the Bible?"
"What do you mean?"
"I mean I don’t believe the Bible claims to be
the sole rule of faith. I mean the doctrine of sola scriptura is
itself unbiblical. Please show me where the Bible claims such a status
for itself."
A Sufficient Rule of Faith?
At this point the missionary probably will bring
up one of several verses. The passage most commonly brought up by Evangelicals
and Fundamentalists is 2 Timothy 3:16–17. In the King James Version, the
verse reads this way: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished
unto all good works."
Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 claims Scripture
is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context
shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable"
(Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable
for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to
the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is
"sufficient"—which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage
means.
Point out that 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. All Scripture is given by inspiration of
God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good
works" (2 Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 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 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.
The few other verses that might be brought up to
"prove" the sufficiency of Scripture can be handled the same way. Not one
uses the word "sufficient"—each one implies profitability or usefulness,
and many are given at the same time as an exhortation to hold fast to the
oral teaching of our Lord and the apostles. The thing to keep in
mind is that nowhere does the Bible say, "Scripture alone is sufficient,"
and nowhere does the Bible imply it.
Understanding the Bible’s Role
After you have demonstrated that the verses the
missionary brings up simply don’t prove this point, continue the discussion
this way:
"If you recognize Scripture for what it is, you’ll
see it wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts. In fact,
not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers. The Old Testament
books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already
were Christians.
"The Bible is not a catechism or a full-scale theological
treatise. Just look at the 27 books of the New Testament. You won’t find
one that spells out the elements of the faith the way catechisms do or
even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the
most part (excepting, for example, the Gospels and the general epistles
such as James and, 1 and 2 Peter) as provisional documents addressed to
particular audiences for particular purposes.
"Most of the epistles," you continue, "were written
to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems.
Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these
local churches (e.g., 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify
these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart
a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to
simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters."
"I don’t agree with any of that," replies the missionary.
"The New Testament is the basis of the Christian faith."
"But how can it be," you respond, "since the Christian
faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of
the New Testament was written? The books of the New Testament were composed
decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there
to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the
New Testament.
"And that brings up another point. How do you know
what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that
these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should
be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some
inspired books haven’t been left out of the canon?"
Who Decided?
"Well, the early Christians agreed on the 27 books,"
answers the missionary. "The Holy Spirit led them to this agreement."
"Sure the Holy Spirit did, but only over a pretty
long period of time, and a study of early Christian history shows that
there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue
of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the book of
Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Letter
to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd,
an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas
did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?"
"We know by examining the contents of the books.
Some books—like 1 Corinthians and Revelation—obviously belong. Others—like
Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians—obviously don’t."
"But is it really so obvious? Tell me, what is
so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired? And what is so
obviously unorthodox in The Shepherd or the Didache or Clement’s
letter or any of the other first- and second-century Christian writings?
You’ve never even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the
New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we
possess are centuries newer than the originals. Like it or not, you have
to take the say-so of the Catholic Church that in fact those copies are
accurate, as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired
canonical New Testament Scriptures. You do accept her testimony
as trustworthy, or else your Protestant Bible would not have those 27 books.
See what I mean?"
Look to the Fathers
If you happen to have the writings of the early
Church Fathers, this would be a good time to read from them. The writings
are, at least in the case of the apostolic Fathers, rather short, and you
can demonstrate that many of these writings seem every bit as orthodox
and inspiring (not to confuse the term with "inspired") as the New Testament
writings themselves. Then read aloud the book of Philemon or 3 John or
some other short canonical book.
"Tell me, what’s in these books that so obviously
makes them inspired? If you didn’t know that Philemon was written by Paul
or that 3 John was written by John, would you give either a second reading?
Would you automatically assume they belong in the Bible as canonical Scripture?
It’s not disrespectful to say they don’t have much doctrinal content in
them—and that’s not surprising, since they’re too short to contain substantial
doctrinal discussions. One can imagine the Christian Church surviving well
enough without either.
"Neither book claims inspiration for itself. If
there is, as a matter of fact, more solid Christian doctrine in other,
non-canonical writings (that is—if they contain more Christian truths and
no religious errors) then how can you say it’s obvious which books are
inspired and which aren’t?"
Here the missionary will fumble around awhile,
perhaps repeating his earlier statements. Then you say:
"Look, the fact is, the only reason you and I have
the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority
of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the
Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against
the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). Any Christian accepting
the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it,
because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision
in determining the canon.
"The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic
Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments
in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision
was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and
419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament
that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.
"Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you
do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became
a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means
you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition,
because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were
in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong
in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than
on Scripture itself!
"The question you have to ask yourself is this:
‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Until you can give a satisfactory answer,
you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture
or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret
it.
"After you answer that question—and there’s really
only one answer that can be given—you have some other important questions
to ask: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our
sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so
many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists
even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?’"
"We Agree on the Essentials"
"Well, that I can answer easily enough," responds
the missionary. "Evangelicals and Fundamentalists agree on the essentials,
but we disagree on secondary matters."
"Is that so? Where in Scripture do we find some
doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’? The answer is: ‘nowhere’.
Evangelicals and Fundamentalists disagree on central issues such as baptismal
regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other
Christians, or does it have a real role in the process of justification?),
whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some Protestants say that’s impossible
to do, others say it is possible). You all claim to be ‘Bible-only
Christians,’ but which group is right?"
Interested in reading more about the Bible?
Check out these wonderful titles from the Bible and Theology section of our online Catalogue
(links open in a new window):
Bible
The Ignatius Bible, Hardcover format
The Ignatius Bible, Paperback
Vatican Publications
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pocket Edition
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
Bible Interpretation
A Guide to the Bible, Antonio Fuentes
Theology for Beginners, Frank J. Sheed
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott
Inside The Bible, Kenneth Baker, S.J.
Making Senses Out Of Scripture, Mark Shea
Where Is That In The Bible?, Patrick Madrid
Where We Got the Bible, Bishop Henry G. Graham
St. John's Gospel: A Bible Study Guide And Commentary, Stephen K. Ray
NIHIL OBSTAT:
I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR:
In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
|
[TOP]
of
