|
|
"In his ecclesiastical history, Eusebius gives an account of evangelists in the very early second century who delivered written copies of the gospels to people who had not yet heard the good news."
|
|
|
Sola Scriptura: Historically Sound
Brian Culliton
I spent some time reading Catholic conversion stories. All the stories I read were Protestants converting to Catholicism, and I was fascinated by some of the things I read. Being one who came out of the Catholic Church, I was surprised by what I found to be a common thread among all the stories.
At some point in every story the convert claimed to have wondered, "How can I know for sure if the books in the Bible are really inspired?" That question along with "there must be an authority that can tell us for sure what belongs and what doesn't" told me that the stories were written purely from a Catholic perspective. It also told me that anyone exploring the Catholic faith might be persuaded to follow this logic. After all, most people are not likely to explore the history for themselves, thus playing right into the Catholic apologist's hands.
The following excerpt is from the conversion story of a well-known Catholic apologist named James Akin.
"The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura also began to trouble me as I wondered how it is that we can know for certain which books belong in the Bible. Certain books of the New Testament, such as the synoptic gospels, we can show to be reliable historical accounts of Jesus' life, but there were a number of New Testament books (e.g., Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation) whose authorship and canonical status were debated in the early Church. Eventually the Church decided in their favor and included them in the canon of inspired books, but I saw that I, a person two thousand years removed from their writing, had no possibility of proving these works were genuinely apostolic. I simply had to take the Church's word on it.
This meant that for one very foundational doctrine-the doctrine of what Scripture is-I had to trust the Church since there was no way to show from within Scripture itself exactly what the books of the Bible should be. But I realized that by looking to the Church as an authentic and reliable witness to the canon, I was violating the principle of sola scriptura. The "Bible only" theory turned out to be self-refuting, since it cannot tell us which books belong in the Bride and which don't!
What was more, my studies in Church history showed that the canon of the Bible was not finally settled until about three hundred years after the last apostle died. If I was going to claim that the Church had done its job and picked exactly the right books for the Bible, this meant that the Church had made an infallible decision three hundred years after the apostolic age, a realization which made it believable that the Church could make even later infallible decisions, and that the Church could make such decisions even today."
(James Akin, "A Triumph And A Tragedy" (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2001))
If a person were trying to learn about Jesus by reading the Bible, why would they wonder how they could know for sure which books belong there, especially since every Christian denomination accepts the Bible as genuine and inspired? What point would there be to the question, unless somebody came along and planted seeds of doubt?
Seeds of doubt are exactly what Catholic apologists are trying to plant in the minds of anyone who is willing to learn of Christ through His word. If they are going to convince people that the Catholic Church has greater authority than the Bible, they know they must somehow undermine biblical authority without damaging its inerrancy.
The light clicked on for some bright apologist somewhere who discovered the notion that sola scriptura could not be true because the Bible couldn't have canonized itself. So the logic goes something like this: Who decided which books belonged in the Bible and which ones didn't? The answer: the church, of course. So the church must have greater authority than the Bible.
That notion has grown so popular that nowadays Catholics everywhere believe that if it weren't for the Catholic Church we would not have a Bible in which to claim as our authority. But is it true? Should the Catholic Church be credited with giving us the Bible? Or is there more to the story than most people realize?
Let's start by defining sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is simply two Latin words meaning "scripture only." In other words, holding to the idea of sola scriptura means that one believes that the scriptures are sufficient for gaining knowledge of God, believing in Jesus Christ, and trusting Him for their salvation. The Apostle John made this point undoubtedly clear in his gospel when he wrote the following:
"And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31)
Since the time John wrote his gospel, nobody ever disputed its authenticity. So if John wrote (in a work that was never disputed) that what he wrote was sufficient, how can people hundreds of years later say it isn't, especially if the people saying it also acknowledge the gospel to be inerrant? It really makes no sense.
Once the gospels and letters were written, they were copied and read in the various churches where they were, in fact, the authority for Christian instruction. In his ecclesiastical history, Eusebius gives an account of evangelists in the very early second century who delivered written copies of the gospels to people who had not yet heard the good news.
1
Every believer may not have had a copy of the writings, but the church in every place certainly did.
As the years went on the gospels and letters continued to be copied and distributed to the growing church. As the church grew so to did heretical movements, which spurned their own writings, challenging many believers. This in turn caused a reaction in the church prompting many well-educated Christians (mostly bishops) to retaliate with writings of their own.
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" 3.1.1) (180 AD)
(Click here to see this quote in context!)
"Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides." (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics:7) (210 AD)
(Click here to see this quote in context!)
Besides the gospel of John -- the three synoptic gospels (Mathew, Mark, and Luke), the book of Acts, all 13 of the Apostle Paul's epistles, 1 Peter, and 1 John -- all were considered inspired text and used as Scripture in the early church. All the New Testament books mentioned above were referenced numerous times by the ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries.
So what about the seven books of the Bible that Akin says were disputed but the church decided to include in the canon of Scripture? (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation)
It was the council of Laodicea in 364 that supposedly canonized the Bible. At the time the council met, around 364 AD, twenty of the twenty-seven New Testament books were universally accepted as genuine. It was a no-brainer. The council had no choice in the matter; they couldn't have denied those twenty books if they wanted to. So there was no decision regarding the books, just an official recognition of them.
There were a lot of other writings circulating during the first few centuries that claimed to be inspired. As previously mentioned, many of these writings originated in heretical groups and were designed to pull Christians away from the truth. This was one of the primary reasons why the church felt it necessary to canonize the authentically inspired books.
Not all the books rejected, however, were rejected for heretical reasons; some were rejected from the canon of scripture because it was known that people other than the apostles or those who were close to them wrote them. Many of these books, such as Clement 1 and Polycarp, were read in the churches along with the inspired texts and were considered profitable for Christians to read or hear. But the council of Laodicea, which marked the official end of Christian liberty, would only allow the books they canonized to be read in the churches.
So with the easy stuff out of the way, i.e., the twenty authentic books that were accepted, and the other obviously uninspired rejected, it was time for the council to roll up their sleeves. The seven books in question along with a few others remained on the table.
In the centuries before the canonization of the Bible, there was debate on the authorship of the book of Revelation. Some believers rejected the book altogether, but most counted it as genuine. Some believed John the apostle wrote Revelation, and others believed that a known prophet from the first century named John wrote the book. Either way, the book of Revelation was accepted in the churches in the earliest centuries and, therefore, accepted into the canon of scripture (but possibly not during the council of Laodicea).
The other six books in question were all found to be authentic, too, although it took a lot of research to try to learn exactly who wrote them. The bottom line is those seven books were not canonized because the council decided to include them, but rather they were canonized because the council, through much research, found them to be authentic.
But even if a person restricted their sola scriptura to the twenty books that were never disputed, it would still be more than sufficient for their salvation and growth as a Christian. We know, however, that all twenty-seven books of the New Testament were found to be authentic by men living in the fourth century. We also know that God has promised that His word would never pass away. So for Protestants it's a non-issue.
But for Catholics, learning the truth about the forming of the Bible is a major stumbling block. The last thing apologists like Akin want is for Catholics to start investigating the history of their church. They know that good inquisitive investigations by truth seeking Catholics will inevitably expose their deceit.
Sola Scriptura does not claim to prove which books belong in the Bible, an honest look at history will take care of that. Sola Scriptura will, however, protect from spiritual tyranny and the illusion of power displayed by the hierarchy of Catholic Church. Sola Scriptura acknowledges no man as ruler of the church, but the true head, Jesus Christ our Lord!
|
|
|
