|
No.
Protestants generally believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Holy Bible.
For example, according to Baptists, Scripture is "the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried" ("Faith and Message," June 14, 2000). Baptists say, "Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true."
This statement implies that the Bible's message is self-evident. Otherwise, how could one ascertain the truth? Yet it is obvious that God's absolute truth is not self-evident because of the multiplicity of interpretations that exist. And how does one explain the many, many different interpretations of Scripture? Protestants argue among themselves as to what the Bible says.
To say that "no human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible" is a contradiction of terms. To understand the Bible requires some form of interpretation, period. The tens of thousands of Protestant denominations each have founders who took it upon themselves to interpret the Bible for themselves and their followers, including Baptists. This began with Luther and continues to the present day. Even worse, many Protestants particularly stress personal inspiration based upon subjective feelings. That's why we've got a kazillion interpretations!
This fact begs us to ask the question, which church has got it right? How do you know the truth? BY WHAT AUTHORITY? This is the one question that ALWAYS stumps a Protestant!
However, it is a very easy question for a Catholic to answer. The answer is: By the authority of the Church and its Apostolic Successors.
The Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God. But the Bible neither makes the claim that Holy Scripture is sufficient nor that it is the supreme standard in deciding religious matters.
Protestants and Catholics do agree that the Bible is authoritative. However, nowhere in Scripture do we find a definition of the canon of the Bible (in other words, what books are authoritative), and so our canonical Bible cannot be said to have any Biblical authority in and of itself. In fact, the canon of the Bible was an ecclesiastical judgment, arrived at over several centuries of Christian life and reflection, and finalized by a series of ROMAN CATHOLIC Councils in the late fourth century. The very process of the canonization of Scripture subordinates the Bible to the authority of the Holy Spirit operating through the ministry of the living Roman Catholic Church! In other words, it was by the Apostolic Tradition that the Roman Catholic Church discerned which writings were to be included.
Church history tells us, though, that Luther rejected what Catholics call the deutero-canonical books and certain passages mainly because they conflicted with his theological theories surrounding justification and purgatory. In order to reject Catholic doctrine on these subjects, Luther found that he had to "throw out" the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees. He also removed sections of Esther (10:4 to 16:24) and Daniel (3:24-90 and chapters 13 and 14). (e.g. II Maccabees 12:46 says, "it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins." This clearly is a reference to Purgatory.) Luther also spoke negatively about some other New Testament books, particularly James, but couldn't find a rationale for removing them from the canon.
Therefore, the Bible that Protestants use is, at least in part, a Roman Catholic book! Think about it. This means that Protestants, by adhering to 'sola scriptura', actually base their faith upon the authority of the Roman Catholic Church so long as they use their Bible! But if the Protestant does not believe in the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, one must logically conclude that they then have no means of knowing which books are part of Scripture and thus cannot appeal to Scripture to prove anything!
Throw that Bible away...
Well, of course, that would be silly. The problems of inspiration and the canon of Scripture point towards the necessity for an infallible authority as found in the Catholic Church. Period. Without such an authority, we are left to our own prejudices, and we cannot know for sure if our prejudices point us in the right direction. The right direction being the Truth.
I Tim. 3:15 states that it is the Church that is the
"pillar and bulwark of truth."
THE CHURCH - Therefore, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome." (CCC 85)
Yet what did the early Christians prior to the institution of the Canonical Bible use authoritatively to know God?
Tradition. Tradition in either oral or written form.
And where did that tradition come from? The Church that since the Reformation is called Catholic. The Church that Christ began with His Apostles and has amazingly perservered for some 2,000 years with their Successors - today's Bishops and Priests - The Roman Catholic Church!
As Paul instructs us, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (II Thess 2:15).
+++++++++++++++++++++
Let's explore some of the Scriptures that are use to try to prove the Bible's sufficiency.
2 Timothy 3:16:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
Paul says here that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction. These are each ecclesiastical functions of the various ministers of the Church, and thus Paul deliberately states that Scripture is a pastoral tool in the hands of the leadership of the Church. Note that while Paul writes that Scripture is useful for doctrine, he does not say that Scripture is the necessary and sufficient font of all doctrine.
Also note that Paul is referring to the Old Testament, since the New Testament was not yet written, compiled and canonized. Does this mean, by the logic of internal sufficiency, that we should reject the New Testament as inspired and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction? No, of course not.
Does this passage in any way establish which books are to be part of the canon of the New Testament? Does this passage in any way establish its own standing as Holy Scripture? No.
Finally, it is worth noting that Paul was writing to Timothy, who was Greek; he was writing in Greek, and cites the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). Therefore, when he says "all Scripture," he is pointing to the Septuagint translation and canon of the Bible. Thus, Paul means that "all Scripture" must certainly include the deutero-canonical books of the Greek canon of the Old Testament (e.g., Wisdom, Sirach, Tobut, Maccabees, etc.). Does this mean that Fundamentalists should put these books back into their Bibles?
2 Peter 1:19-21:
"And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed knowing first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
Again, this passage proves the divine inspiration of Scripture, but says nothing about sufficiency or supreme authority. Since Scripture, being the voice of God through the Holy Spirit, is not of any private interpretation, then the interpretation of Scripture is surely a task of the "bishops which the Holy Spirit has appointed to shepherd the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). Indeed, does not Paul inform Timothy that Scripture is a profitable tool for the formulation of doctrine?
We must take 2 Peter 1:19-21 in the context of the entire first chapter of Peter's Second Epistle. Peter reminds his audience that he has for many years proclaimed to them, by means of his preaching and witness, the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (1:16); he tells us that he has seen confirmation of the words of the prophets (1:19; which indeed he did in the Transfiguration and in the Empty Tomb). He tells us that he is about to suffer martyrdom (1:14), but that he will leave a "means to recall these things to mind" (1:12, 15).
So we must take note that Peter never wrote a Gospel, and that 2 Peter is his last canonical Epistle. What then did he leave behind "to remind you always of these things"? Peter left behind the teaching office of the Church to call these things to mind. Indeed, it is Peter who tells us so firmly to "be submissive to the presbyters" (1 Pe 5:5)!
2 Corinthians 1:13:
"We do not write you anything you cannot read or understand."
Peter clarifies this, saying: "In all (Paul's) letters there are of course some passages which are hard to understand, and these are the ones that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way that they distort the rest of Scripture--to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:11).
Peter also reminds us that "we must recognise that the interpretation of Scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual" (2 Peter 1:20). In other words, according to Peter, Scripture is subordinate to ecclesiastical authority in matters of teaching and doctrine. This statement is in line with Paul's comment on the profitability of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16.
John 16:13:
"When He, the Spirit of Truth has come, He will guide you into all truth."
This is not any guarantee that every believer will be able to infallibly interpret Scripture, thereby according Scripture full sufficiency and supremacy in matters of discerning doctrine and answering questions about the faith.
Paul reminds us that not every one of us is gifted by the Holy Spirit with the word of wisdom or the word of truth (see 1 Cor. 12:8). The notion to the contrary is precisely why there exists today so many different Protestant churches and sects!
|
