Scripture Alone (3 of 5)

Establishing or Judging Scripture?

The emergence, growing popularity and increasing influence of Protestant movements, and leaders such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, demanded a response from Roman Catholic leaders. Initially it was Martin Luther and his ideas that formed the prime focus of their attention. The Council of Trent was convened to produce a response, and indeed, some changes were made. But with regard to Scripture and the Bible, the Council re-affirmed Roman Catholic use of the Latin Vulgate translation, the continued inclusion of the Apocrypha, and the importance and authority of Church Tradition including the oral tradition handed down within the Church from the Apostles. One of their criticisms was that the Protestant leaders were ‘judging Scripture’ and that in their arrogance these leaders were setting themselves up above God as the arbiters of Scripture and Apostolic tradition.

I propose that this criticism falls into a trap and is mistaken. The core of the problem is the confusion that often exists between Scripture, the Bible and oral Apostolic tradition. From the Roman Catholic viewpoint all of these are seen as the authoritative ‘Word of God’ and therefore beyond question or human criticism. But earlier in this study I have already pointed out that the Word of God, Scripture, the Bible and tradition each have different definitions and different scopes of meaning. Fallible leaders within the Christian Church agreed upon the documents that have been included or excluded from the Bible. These leaders, in their councils, made human judgements – judicial decisions – with regard to which documents did or did not merit being part of an acceptable, authoritative Christian ‘canon’ or ‘rule of faith and conduct’. When the Protestant leaders inquired into these decisions they were in many ways continuing the work and spirit of these early councils. They were not arrogantly setting themselves above God or the Word of God. Rather, they were weighing up the validity of what these Councils had decided as well as weighing up the merits of the documents that were included in the Bible. The Apostle Paul endorses this kind of process. When a prophet speaks, when someone says, ‘Thus says the Lord…’ then other prophets should carefully weigh what is said’, (I Corinthians 14 v 29). The Apostle John says the same: ‘Dear friends, do not believe every breath, but test the breaths to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world’, (I John 4 v 1). Similarly in Deuteronomy 13 v 1 – 3 the Jews were given marks or tests whereby they could judge, weigh or assess whether a prophet or dreamer was from God or not. Martin Luther questioned the validity of the letter to the Hebrews and Book of Revelation as to whether they should be included in the ‘rule of faith’. This was a valid weighing up as to what was to be included in the Bible, but his view to exclude them was a minority one and other leaders were happy to include these documents. In later generations, John Wesley would also undertake similar evaluations.

The point that I am concerned to make is that the boundaries of the Bible are based on human judgements and these judgements have varied throughout church history. Such evaluative weighing up by responsible, appointed leaders is not to arrogantly question God or the word of God – it is a principle laid down in commonly accepted documents that constitute part of the Christian ‘rule of faith and conduct’, it is part of Apostolic teaching.

However, as part of the defence of the collection of documents that constitute the Bible as an authority for Christian faith and conduct, we have seen a merging and confusion of the definitions of ‘Scripture’ and the ‘Bible’. For many Christians and their leaders of different denominations, these have come to mean the same thing, namely ‘the Word of God’. Defining the Bible as Scripture and as the ‘Word of God’ seems to bolster what is proposed to be the Bible’s unquestionable authority – to question the Bible and its contents is to arrogantly question or oppose the Word of God and therefore God Himself. This confusion of definitions brings with it some important implications. They boil down to something like this. The proposition is that God is Perfect. God is Truth and cannot lie. God is consistent with Himself. The Bible is equivalent to Scripture and the Word of God therefore the Bible is perfect truth and completely consistent within itself. There can be no errors or contradictions within and between its statements either with regard to God and the spiritual realm, or with regard to the historical events that these documents describe and portray. That is the proposition of Christian Fundamentalism. Thus the common watchword of today’s conservative Christians, and particularly Protestant Fundamentalists is not only their appeal to ‘Scripture alone’, but to also closely follow this assertion with a quote from II Timothy. Here is the popular quote from the NIV translation: ‘from infancy you have known the set-apart Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, (II Timothy 3 v 15 – 17). Translated in this way from the Greek text, some Christians make the implication that the Bible is the God-breathed, inspired word of God. If challenged with the fact that the ‘canon’ or rule of faith of the New Testament had not yet been determined when these verses were written, then they propose that the ‘set apart Scriptures’ is a reference to the Old Testament. But exactly when the Old Testament ‘canon’ was formed is a matter of debate, and in any case the number of writings included in the Hebrew ‘canon’ varies from one group of Jews to another.

Here is the amplified quote of II Timothy from the Greek text. ‘You know the, set apart writings from infancy, which continue to have the power to make you wise within the sphere of deliverance through obedient persuasion within Jesus the Messiah, 16 each and every writing breathed out by God, useful and advantageous, leading towards instruction, leading towards persuasion, moving towards correction, moving towards training, education and instruction within judicial approval, 17 in order that the man of God may be thoroughly prepared, moving towards every kind of intrinsically good action, fully equipped’. This amplified translation, which has been established by reference to various expert translators, gives a better sense of these verses. The Greek word for ‘writings’ is ‘gramma’, derived from ‘grapho’, meaning ‘that which is drawn or written’. Once again this word has a wide range of applications, but here the reference is to ‘set apart writings’ which the Jews generally considered to be equivalent to Covenant Law or the written Law of Moses. Christians agree that it was not Moses who thought up or originated Covenant Law, but rather that it was YHVH Who was the source of these laws. As such YHVH breathed out the writings of Covenant Law and therefore they are profitable for instructing those who seek to serve God faithfully. We can say the same about those who experienced prophecies and visions. There is a similar sense in which God also breathed out these experiences of prophecies and visions and the recipients were ‘caught up’ in this breath. Thus the watchword was not ‘Scripture alone’, but rather, ‘to the Law, to the testimony or evidential witness, to the prophets’. This is somewhat different from saying that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore without error.

Scripture Alone (2 of 5)

An Emphasis on the Bible

The Reformation leaders, amongst other things, faced corrupt teaching, superstition and an emphasis on miracles. It was and is perhaps typical that there was sometimes an over reaction on both sides. The Reformers declared the Pope to be the ‘antichrist’ and so on. As part of the Reformer’s opposition to miracles and the profitable trade in relics, many of the Reformation leaders concluded that extraordinary miraculous gifts had ceased at about the time that the Twelve Apostles or their immediate successors had died. They brought certain propositions to bear based on Bible verses to this effect. As part of this proposition they also determined that what they classed as extraordinary roles of service within the church had also ceased, namely those of Apostles, Evangelists and Prophets. By means of this conclusion, what had become a prominent and profitable reliance on miracles, visions and personal words and callings from God were closed off. In my opinion, this proposition of the Reformers was incorrect and they used mistaken interpretations of Bible texts.

The Reformers placed their emphasis on the Bible instead. It was the Bible that came to be exclusively defined as the ‘Word of God’. Both Roman Catholics and Protestant Reformers defined the Bible in this way and in doing so they implied that the Bible was set apart as the ultimate written authority with regard to God and the unseen spiritual realm, and that as such, what it declared was beyond question. For a person to question, oppose or doubt the Bible meant that they were questioning, opposing or doubting God Himself. Roman Catholics continued to place emphasis on tradition, but for many Protestant Reformers the Bible came to be the exclusive authoritative rule of Christian faith and practice. The image of a Protestant preacher holding aloft a copy of the Bible whilst declaring it to be the sole authoritative Word of God is a familiar one. We can still see this pose being adopted down to this day, as a portrayal of faithfulness to the written spiritual authority of God.

In due course subsequent challenges arose from the Roman Catholic ‘counter reformation’, the ‘Enlightenment’ and emerging disciplines such as ‘science’, as seen with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, all of which meant that increasing challenges were presented to the sole authority and the authenticity of the Bible. In an attempt to counter these trends, some Protestant leaders developed the ‘Christian Fundamentalist’ movement in the early twentieth century in which they sought to maintain and defend the spiritual authority of Scripture alone. Protestant Reformed leaders such as B. B. Warfield and others developed systems of logic that seemed to effectively ‘ring fence’ Scripture from such scientific and philosophical ‘attacks’. Thus, a hundred years later, we still have ‘Fundamentalist Christians’ who vigorously maintain the authority of the Bible alone as the sole authoritative rule for Christian faith and conduct. When faced with opposition they summon ‘proof texts’ as their defence, passionately maintaining their allegiance to such key texts, and by implication, their allegiance to God and His Messiah. In fact, within this kind of group, a form of ‘Protestant tradition’ has emerged which they adhere to with as much passion as their Roman Catholic counterparts do to their traditions.

The questions I am asking are these: Is the Protestant Reformer’s and Christian Fundamentalist’s position of ‘Scripture alone’ tenable? Indeed, is it Scriptural? Is the ‘ring-fencing’ of Scripture by Fundamentalist theologians as watertight as it seems? What is the role, if any, of ‘Christian tradition’ and how does it relate to Scripture? These important questions concern what a Christian’s faith is grounded upon. For many Protestant Reformed Christians the foundation of their faith is maintained by repeating the phrase ‘Scripture alone’ coupled with the addition of a few related ‘proof texts’ as though the matter is thereby settled without further question. I will now explore the theme of ‘Scripture alone’ and look at some of its related sub themes.

Defining Scripture

It is important to define what we mean by ‘Scripture’. The word ‘Scripture’ simply means ‘that which is written’, or ‘writing’, but the reference to such writing is particularly with regard to writings related to God and the unseen spiritual realm. On a couple of occasions within the Bible, reference is made to ‘Holy Scriptures’, (Romans 1 v 2; II Timothy 3 v 15). These are writings about God and unseen spiritual realm that are ‘set apart’ from other writings that reflect the corrupt values and errors of the thinking and reasoning of the world.

The word ‘Scripture’ is not used in the Old Testament. The translators of the NIV and some other translations use the word ‘scripture’ in Daniel 9 v 2, but the Hebrew word used here is ‘sepher’ meaning ‘book’, ‘evidence’, ‘register’ or ‘scroll’. This word has a wide range of references, such as a written order, usually from a King; a legal document, such as a certificate of divorce; a register of names; God’s record book of the living; or simply to that which is written. Its precise meaning is determined by its context. More importantly for our theme, it can also refer to a book of law, including Covenant Law, or a book of prophesies, or a book from a prophet, a book of visions, or a book or scroll in which something is written so as to preserve it for future use.

By way of contrast, the New Testament sees the word ‘Scripture’ used over fifty times. The Greek word is ‘graphe’ meaning ‘writing’ and it is used to denote a Hebrew book, or passage from a Hebrew book that had been set apart in connection with Hebrew religion and history.

Scripture is not the same as the ‘Bible’. The Bible is a collection and collation of different writings that Hebrew and Christian leaders judged to be set-apart Scriptures and that different people wrote at different times. As such the Bible has no view of itself. When the Apostle Paul refers to the ‘set apart Scriptures’ he is not referring the Bible. Whilst he may have been referring to some, all, or even to more of the Hebrew writings that we now find in the Old Testament, he was certainly not referring to the New Testament because these Christian documents would not finally be collated until a few centuries after his death. Nowhere do any of the authors of the writings included in the collection of Bible documents declare which documents are to constitute ‘the Bible’. God has not given a word to any Prophet or Apostle that precisely defines which sacred writings are to be included in the Bible or which are to be excluded.

This means that which writings are, or are not, set apart and included in the Bible is a matter of debate. Historically speaking, Roman Catholic leaders of the Western Church included a set of writings known as the ‘Apocrypha’. These were written after the Babylonian Captivity but before the birth of Jesus, and include documents such as I and II Maccabees. There are also other writings that are referred to or quoted in Bible documents but which are not included in the final collection of Bible documents. This is because some of these writings are now ‘lost’ such that there is no known copy remaining in existence, whilst others were simply not included in the collection of Bible writings for various reasons.

The need to collect and define what leaders considered to be set apart sacred writings became an important issue in the early centuries of Christianity. This was because a number of religious writings began to emerge that used Christian themes but that were not consistent with the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles. One of the primary trends of this kind were the writings of Christian Gnostics who advocated a form of inner spiritual experience and secret teachings leading towards spiritual liberation. Their teaching incorporated ideas about Jesus and salvation. The early leaders within Christianity who sought to remain faithful to the teaching of the Apostles became concerned that these ‘spurious’ and erroneous writings and the teaching that they contained were leading people astray. So various councils of Christian Elders convened with regard to this matter and in due course a set of collated writings were brought together as a Council approved set of documents that they proposed constituted an ‘authoritative rule’ or ‘canon’ for Christian beliefs and behaviour.

A similar process and set of debates took place with regard Hebrew religious documents. Some Jews only accepted the first five books of what we know as the Old Testament. Others accepted a wider range of literature that included the Prophets such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah. Yet others accepted an even wider range of documents. It would seem that around the same time that Christian debates were taking place, Hebrew leaders engaged in a similar debate to form the Hebrew ‘canon’ of sacred, set apart writings. Christian leaders involved in the debate about a Christian ‘canon’ included a Hebrew ‘canon’ of documents as the ‘Old Testament’ of the Bible. Thus, in the early centuries following the Messiah, the Biblical ‘canon’ of collected documents was formed to constitute and authoritative rule of Christian faith and conduct.

During the Reformation period with its emphasis away from corrupt church traditions and its focus on a return to Scripture in the original languages rather than translations as a basis for faith, the theme of the nature and extent of the Biblical ‘canon’ arose once more. Roman Catholic leaders continued to rely on the Latin Vulgate translation and maintained their inclusion of the apocryphal documents. The Reformers rejected the Vulgate as a flawed and inferior translation and they also excluded the apocrypha, partly perhaps because Roman Catholic leaders referred to it to promote ideas such as purgatory and praying for the dead. The whole of the ‘canon’ came up for re-assessment and prominent Reformer Martin Luther rejected some writings that Christian Councils had previously included in the ‘canon’, such as the letter to the Hebrews, but his views remained on the margins. Even in the eighteenth century, John Wesley returned to this theme once again. However, the leaders of the Protestant Reformations also wanted to retain a sense of continuity with church history, especially with the early church fathers that had helped to define the ‘canon’ in the first place.

So let’s be clear. The collection of set-apart sacred writings is a human project borne out of circumstantial necessity. Defining what is and what is not included in the Bible so as to form an acceptable set of documents that act as a reliable guide for Christian faith and conduct is a human construct, not a divine one. The leaders who helped to make these decisions were delegated and appointed leaders of Jews with regard to Hebrew or Old Testament writings, and Christian elders with regard to New Testament writings. Various principles and standards were used. None of these leaders were infallible. Even when brought together as a group or Council they were not beyond making mistakes. But their decisions were made and these decisions became the ‘orthodox’ or single authoritative ruling of the delegated and appointed leaders of the Church. As such they became part of the Church tradition that the Western Roman Catholic Church valued so highly.

Scripture Alone (1 of 5)

One of the fundamental themes of the Protestant Reformers in Europe in the sixteenth century was that of ‘sola scriptura’ – Scripture alone. This ‘watchword of the Reformation’ constituted an appeal for Christians to return to core sources of Christianity by establishing their beliefs and behaviours only from Scripture, from the Bible. This was part of their protest – hence the name ‘Protestant’ – against what these leaders saw as the error and corruption that had come to pervade the Roman Catholic Church. Errors had emerged through the Church’s emphasis on tradition and through the Bible only being available in Latin to priests who had ten misinterpreted it to the people it in many ways. Thus there was a movement to make the Bible available to people in their own language. The idea was that if any teaching or practice could not be found expressed in, or could not be logically deduced from Scripture, then such teaching and practice had no divine authority. In other words Christians were not under obligation to submit to such teaching and practices, such as for example the sale of indulgences. The aim if their protest against corrupt teaching and practice was to reform – to change the shape of – teaching and practice within the Roman Catholic Church so that its teaching and practice was more honouring to God. This call to return to Biblical sources alone was not was originated by the Reformation leaders, but rather was a movement that had already emerged in some sections of the Roman Catholic Church and Christian thought. This movement led to an emphasis on the Hebrew and Greek texts, and in the process, the Latin Vulgate translation of these texts on which the Roman Catholic Church had founded its teaching and practice, was found to be wanting. In places it was in error and this in turn meant that some Roman Catholic teaching and practice was considered to be in error.

The Reformer’s protest was in part against certain traditions and customs that the Roman Catholic Church leaders had sanctioned or adopted. For the Reformers, Roman Catholic leaders lay great stress not only on an inadequate translation of Scripture, but on human and sometimes erroneous traditions. Roman Catholic authorities argued that there was an ‘oral tradition’ within Christianity – a body of teaching and practices handed down by word of mouth from the Apostles through successive generations of appointed church leaders.

The Apostles remain important to both Catholics and Protestant Reformers, but who or what are ‘Apostles’? An Apostle is someone who is appointed and delegated for some specific service. Following the betrayal by and death of Judas Iscariot, Jesus appointed the remaining eleven closest disciples as Apostles, sending them out to declare the gospel not only to Jews but also to Gentiles, teaching and baptising those who were persuaded to the point of obedience. A line of succession is implied because Jesus promised to be with them until the consummation of the present age. (Matthew 28 v 19, 20). However, Jesus was not the only one who commissioned Apostles. In the first chapter of Acts, Peter, quoting from Psalm 109 v 8, proposes that someone must be chosen to take the place of Judas. ‘“Therefore what must happen, the men coming together with us within all the time that the Lord Jesus was coming in and going out upon us, beginning away from John’s baptism until the day in which he continued to be taken up from us, one of these is to become a witness of the resurrection with us.” And two were caused to stand, Joseph called Barsabbas, (also known as Justus), and Matthias. And praying, they said “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Indicate which one of these two you select to be taking hold of the place of this, the service and sending away, away from which Judas went contrary to, to travel to his own place.” 26 Then they offered lots for them and the lot fell on the basis of Matthias, and he was counted in company with the commissioned eleven’, (Acts 1 v 21 – 26). The commissioned disciples were eyewitnesses who were sent away in service to give evidential testimony to the resurrection of Jesus, so it was important that they had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, that they knew and witnessed that it was Jesus who had been resurrected.

But then we also have Paul, who did not meet this qualification. Paul was a Jew who originally saw Christianity as a blasphemous sect that was corrupting Judaism and needed to be stamped out. Thus, until his conversion on the Damascus Road he was intent on persecuting Christians, especially Hebrew Christians. In his first letter to the Corinthians he describes himself in this way. ‘Because I delivered to you within first importance what I also continue receiving. That the Messiah died on behalf of our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen by Peter, and furthermore, the Twelve. After that he was seen by more than five hundred brothers at the same time, of whom most abide until now, but some have fallen asleep. Then James saw him, then all the apostles. Then last of all, as if it were an untimely miscarriage, I also saw him. Because I am the least of the apostles, the commissioned delegates, who exists inadequate to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the assembly of God. But, gift of God, I am what I am, and his free gift toward me has not been empty. But on the contrary, I worked harder than all of them, yet not I, on the contrary, the grace of God that was with me’, (I Corinthians 15 v 3 – 10).

The ‘Twelve’ are distinguished as disciples who were with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry until his death, and who subsequently saw him resurrected. These are the twelve Apostles. Eleven of them were commissioned and sent out by Jesus as eyewitnesses to herald the gospel. Matthias was put forward by Christians along with Joseph, and it was Matthias who was indicated by the casting of lots during prayer to replace Judas Iscariot. However it is clear from verse 7 that the Apostles were not limited to being twelve in number. Commentators agree that Scripture portrays others as being apostles also. In Acts 14 v 14, Barnabas is called an apostle, and in I Thessalonians 2 v 7, Timothy and Silvanus are also designated in the same way. In Romans 16 v 7 we read, ‘Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles’.

In its broadest terms an apostle is a commissioned delegate, messenger or herald, who is sent out with orders. In the narrower sense, Jesus commissioned the ‘Twelve’ himself, but others, such as Matthias, Barnabas, Timothy and others were in many ways commissioned as delegated authorities by fellow Christians and their leaders. The purpose of the delegation or commission may vary, and as commissioned delegates the role of apostles is seen as being distinct from that of elders or leaders in the assembly, (Acts 15 v 22). Thus there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, deacons, pastors, teachers and so on.

The idea of ‘Apostolic Succession’ is that the Twelve Apostles officially established and anointed leaders in Christian communities by laying their hands on the heads of leaders. In turn and in due course, these leaders established their approved successors. In terms of teaching and practice, it is to the Twelve apostles in particular that reference is made. It is their teaching and practice that is to be preserved and maintained by subsequent generations of Christians leaders or elders, and evangelists, heralds or missionaries.

When it came to establishing set apart writing that was considered to be authoritative and suitable for use for teaching, especially in the face of increasing errors and wayward deviations, the leaders of the early Christian assemblies focussed on the apostles and what they considered to be their authentic writings. These writings included those of Paul, as one called ‘out of time’. This meant that the letter to Hebrews was included in the approved selection of texts because many leaders considered, though it would seem mistakenly, that Paul was the author of this letter. Many of the Twelve Apostles have left us with no writings at all. Possibly the writings of some of their successors have been included in the Bible, perhaps such as II Peter. But early Christian writings such as Didache, or the writings of Paul’s associates, such as Barnabas or Clement, are not included.

Roman Catholic leaders pointed out that various Councils of appointed church leaders had at certain times made important decisions with regard to Christian themes. These included establishing the concept of the Trinity and the use (or not) of icons. Catholic Church leaders argued that these decisions formed part of the formal established traditional beliefs and practice of the Church. To question or oppose these formal aspects of Christian tradition established by delegated leaders was to be in danger of ‘heresy’ or ‘apostasy’, of falling away from or opposing God and His appointed leaders. Such traditional decisions and practices were seen to constitute part of the historical continuity of Christianity.

The Reformers were also concerned with historical continuity and heritage within Christianity. What they were protesting about were beliefs, practices and traditions that had no basis in, or that contradicted Scripture, and they considered that these ‘impurities’ had emerged particularly during the Middle Ages or Medieval period. So in their concern to maintain historical continuity and to draw from and value Christian heritage, they sought for unity with earlier Christian generations that were not stained by these impurities, particularly Christian leaders such as Augustine and some of the patristic or early church ‘fathers’. To demonstrate the inner coherence of their reformed beliefs and practices, they began to formulate ‘confessions of faith’, ‘catechisms’ and systematic theologies’ such as John Calvin’s ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion’. These served to explain, educate and consolidate the Reformer’s teaching and practice and they quoted extensively from Scripture and from the writings of these earlier Christian leaders.