Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia?

Alpha and Omega Ministries presents the Dividing Line radio broadcast. The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence.

The Dividing Line is brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries, the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and Bethany House Publishers. Your host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

With today's topic, here is Dr. White.

And welcome to you on a blustery Saturday afternoon here in the Phoenix area. It is beautiful. I love this kind of weather. I was out this morning on the back porch pumping iron, listening to Mannheim Steamroller, and watching the rain come down.

Sola Scriptura and the Authority of God-Breathed Scripture

That was the way to start a beautiful Saturday afternoon. For the past couple of weeks, we have been looking at the subject of sola scriptura, the sufficiency of scripture to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.

And it just so happens in the providence of God that this very morning, I received an email message from a Roman Catholic seminary student. This gentleman and I have had extensive interaction electronically over the past, oh, I'd say about a year or so.

And we have really gone over everything that's in this email many, many times, and sadly, it doesn't seem to get through. But it was very representative of the next segment of our presentation that we need to make in regards to sola scriptura.

So I thought I'd share it with you, especially since it was not sent to me alone, but was copied to a number of other people. Therefore, it's not really a private message in any way. It is addressed to me, and it says, You have often said that the authority of scripture comes from the fact that the scriptures are God-breathed.

And he is quite correct. That is what we have said. Since you have not yet been able to answer my previous question on your knowledge of scripture's inspiration, I would like to ask again how you know, in all capitals, the scriptures are God-breathed.

Does your authority for saying the scriptures are God-breathed come from the Bible alone, in which case you have the circular argument of believing the Bible is God-breathed because the God-breathed Bible says so?

Or does it come from an authority outside the Bible, in which case, since you say scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, you would be basing your knowledge that scripture is God-breathed, and thus infallible, on a fallible foundation, leaving you with only a fallible human recognition of God's infallible word, and thus with a fallible collection of what might be God-breathed.

Which is it, Professor White? Well, there is a very standard question that is currently being used by Roman Catholic apologists all across our land, and that is, how do you know that the scriptures are God-breathed?

It comes in various forms. Sometimes the question is, how do you know that Matthew is a part of scripture, whereas the Gospel of Thomas is not, for example. How do you know these things are inspired? Or sometimes it is, how do you have infallible knowledge about these particular things?

Very good questions. I don't want to rush into an answer, because I want you to ask yourself, how would you respond to those questions? How would you respond to the question posed to you, really by anyone, but especially in this context, by a Roman Catholic apologist who says, look, how do you know that the Bible is God-breathed?

Yes, it says, Paul says, all scripture is God-breathed. And yes, the Lord Jesus in Matthew chapter 22 specifically taught that the scriptures are God speaking to us, hence the exact same doctrine, the exact same teaching coming from the words of the Lord Jesus and the words of the Apostle Paul.

The Bible says these things, but what external authority do you have to guarantee the truthfulness of what the Bible says? And when we start placing it in that context, we can start understanding what we're really being asked to do here.

And that is, in fact, where the question collapses and the entire system is seen to be circular, and we can find out that in reality, this is the same question that was asked, the same statement that was made, shall we say, was phrased as a question, but it was really a statement.

Back in the garden, when the devil himself said, yea, hath God said, yes, has God really spoken? You see, the reason that this type of question has been so effective in confusing many Protestants and evangelicals in our world today is because we don't spend a lot of time thinking about the foundational basis upon which we believe that the Scriptures are what they are.

In fact, we don't spend a lot of time thinking about really what the Scriptures are. If we really believe that the Scriptures are God-breathed, that they are God-speaking, then let's think for a moment what that means.

Right now, you are hearing the words coming from my voice, from my mouth. As I speak, these words are changed into digital format and transferred here from the studios to a transmitter where they go out in another form and they go into your radio, and it's a complex system, of course, but you're hearing fundamentally my words that I'm speaking.

When we talk about God's words, when we talk about God speaking, obviously His words must partake of His authority. When God says something, how can He guarantee that what He is saying is true? The Scriptures recognize this.

The Scriptures say when God swears, by what can He swear that is higher than Himself? He cannot raise His hand and say, I swear by the earth, or I swear by the sun, or I swear by the temple. There's nothing that He can swear by that is greater than He is.

So you see, fundamentally, God cannot prove the truth value of His words because He's the very standard of truth itself. He is the creator of all things. His words, by very nature, have an ultimate authority that cannot be based upon anything else.

Now, you can look at them, you can demonstrate that they are consistent with truth, consistent with reality, things like that, but, of course, those are secondary because truth and reality are the creations of God in the first place.

All you're really saying is God is consistent with Himself, which is the same thing as saying God is true. And so, in reality, God's words have to have ultimate and final authority, and they cannot refer to some long process of proof as their foundation and their basis.

If God is whom God claims to be, then it must follow, logically and of necessity, that His words are of ultimate authority simply because He has spoken them. They come from Him. They are His word. Well, that's the problem that we encounter when we attempt to quote-unquote prove the Bible.

You see, many people would like us to try to change what the Bible is so they can get around its message. You see, if it is what Jesus and Paul— and, really, it's all through the Scriptures. The prophets taught this.

It's not just Jesus and Paul, but in those passages that we've looked at before, in Matthew 22 and in 2 Timothy 3, where it is so plainly taught that these are God-breathed, these are God's words. If the Bible is that, then we can point to other issues to demonstrate the consistency of our belief in the Bible as the word of God.

We can point to its internal consistency. We can point to its historicity. We can point to the existence of historical artifacts that demonstrate elements of the historical narrative of the Bible. We can point to prophecies.

We can point to the fulfilled prophecies that have already taken place. We can point to all of that stuff, but none of those things in and of themselves provide a sufficient foundation for saying this is God's word, because none of those things would be greater than the authority of the word of God itself.

The Bible can't say, well, here's the greater sources of authority that say that I'm true. It doesn't work that way. If you are the ultimate authority, there are no other sources of authority that you can appeal to to prove your claims.

And so what people want us to do is they want us to compromise the authority of Scripture so as to give to them some source of proof and authority that they'll accept. What they want us to do is they want us to subjugate the Scriptures to some higher source of authority.

And of course, once you've done that, you've denied the Scriptures for what they really are. Rome wants us to do this. Rome cannot have a Scripture that is in of itself authoritative, in of itself able to speak for itself.

The Roman church must subjugate the Bible to its authority, subjugate the Scriptures to its ultimate power. Every other group has a way of doing this as well. They have some way of saying you must prove the Scriptures by some standard of authority that we are willing to accept.

And by doing so, we deny the ultimate authority of the Scriptures. That's the first error in the question that we're looking at today. That's the first problem that is presented to us. There are a number of others, and we will look at them in just a moment, right after we take this brief break.

Circularity, Infallibility, and the Limits of Human Knowledge

We continue looking at the issue of Sola Scriptura this afternoon, looking at an email that I received just this morning challenging my belief in Sola Scriptura. Another problem with the presentation that is made here, asking me to present some sort of external authority.

Let me just remind you what was said. Does your authority for saying the Scriptures are God-breathed come from the Bible alone, in which case you have the circular argument of believing the Bible is God-breathed because the God-breathed Bible says so.

Well, is that a circular argument? Yes. Is it an invalid argument? No. Why? Because when it comes to an ultimate authority, you cannot avoid that level of circularity. Why? If God says, I am God, to whom does he appeal to make his point?

What higher authority can he say, well, this proves that I'm God? There is no higher authority. And so you see, the first option is the proper option, and that is that God has said it. Is there no other reason to believe that?

Well, of course, there are other reasons to believe it, but they are secondary and are not the foundation. And if we make them the foundation, then we, of course, destroy the authority of Scripture. But notice the second option that was given to us, or does it come from an authority outside the Bible, in which case, since you say Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, you would be basing your knowledge that Scripture is God breathed, and thus infallible, on a fallible foundation, leaving you only with a fallible human recognition of God's infallible word, and thus the fallible collection of what might be God breathed.

Now, there's the second error. The second error is that unless I become infallible in my knowledge, the word of God cannot be infallible. This is, again, a very common basic error that is being made by legions of Roman Catholic apologists out there.

They will trick you into thinking that you have to become infallible yourself or have an infallible source of authority to know that God's word is infallible. And, of course, they are more than quick to offer you that infallible source of authority in the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

But you see, in reality, as is so often the case, my correspondent cannot answer his own question. My correspondent cannot answer his own question. You see, his own position cannot provide a meaningful response to the issue that he has raised to me.

Oh, he may say, well, I know that the Bible is inspired because Rome tells me so. But as anyone, upon just a few moments of reflection, can see, all that's doing is moving the question back one step. You've introduced a new ultimate authority.

Your new ultimate authority is Rome. So now the obvious question that must be asked is, well, how do you know that Rome is that ultimate authority? How do you know that Rome is the infallible church that can tell you these things?

And as soon as you ask that question, they have to start using the very same arguments that I would point to in saying, well, here's the historicity, here's all these other issues in regards to providing a basis for the rationality of my believing that the Bible is the word of God, even though, as I said, that is not the ultimate foundation.

The ultimate foundation is recognizing that God is God, but the church of Rome is not God. And the church of Rome does not claim to speak with revelation from God. Oh, she claims to have some level of tradition allegedly passed down from the apostles, but even Rome cannot claim to have revelation today.

And so, as I've said before, there really are two positions here. There is sola scriptura, that's what I believe, and there is sola ecclesia. That's what my correspondent believes. His ultimate infallible rule of faith is the Roman Catholic Church.

The result of sola ecclesia can be seen all around us, but I just point out one thing. You see, my correspondent friend has one take on what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, but he would have to admit, and has admitted, that his understanding of Rome's teachings are not infallible.

You see, it's one thing to have an infallible interpreter of the infallible scriptures, but to truly be infallible yourself, you have to have the personal gift of infallibility, because my friend might misinterpret what Rome teaches.

I mean, if you've read any Roman encyclicals, you know they can be downright confusing. So, he doesn't have infallible knowledge of what Rome teaches. So, if he really wants to have that level of infallibility that he claims I must have, then he needs another infallible interpreter of the infallible interpreter.

But still, that doesn't make him infallible. So, he needs another infallible interpreter, and you can see what happens. It goes on and on and on and on, and never do we get to that point that my correspondent says we need to get to, and that is where I have infallible knowledge.

You see, I'm not an infallible person. There aren't any infallible people running around. That includes the Bishop of Rome. I am a fallible person, and I recognize my fallibility, but there is a difference between infallible knowledge and sufficient knowledge.

I do not have infallible knowledge of how my car works, but I have sufficient knowledge to get me home this afternoon. God doesn't require us to have infallible knowledge, but he has provided us more than sufficient knowledge.

Rome, History, and the Claims of the Magisterium

It reminds me of another Roman Catholic apologist that I contacted just recently. I had seen a statement by the current Pope on the Vatican website, and on the Vatican website, he had given a talk in Vatican Square, and to basically summarize the entire statement, he had indicated that it is Catholic teaching that any individual who honestly follows the dictates of his religious belief, whatever that religious belief might be, whenever he follows the dictates of that belief honestly, he will receive eternal life.

It doesn't matter what religion he's a part of. He doesn't have to know Jesus Christ. He will receive eternal life. Well, I asked this Roman Catholic apologist about this, and the response I got was very much a response indicative of a belief in Sola Scriptura.

Well, the Pope came out and said, all you have to do is be honest in your religious belief, whatever it might be, and you will receive eternal life. I sent this article to a Roman Catholic apologist, and I said, you know, it seems to me in the history of the Roman Catholic Church that Rome used to teach the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, that is, outside of the Church there is no salvation.

And in light of this, and now in light of what the Pope is saying now, in light of history, the fact that the Church of Rome certainly, any unbiased historical account, and even a biased historical account, will recognize that the Church of Rome engaged in what was known as the Inquisitions, that they would bring physical force to bear to try to get someone to repent and join the Church, even to the point of ending their physical life, so as allegedly to save their spiritual life.

In light of this, how do you respond to the fact that Rome has changed its theology? The response was indicative of what happens when you believe in sola ecclesia, the Church as the final authority. How do I, why do I say that?

Well, specifically, he said, well, Mr. White, you have no right to tell us what we once believed. You can't look into history. You're not an infallible interpreter of history. The Church says we never believed those things, that we've always believed what we believe now, and since the Church is infallible, therefore, that's the truth.

We don't believe you. We believe what the Church says. So here you have a situation where you cannot even go back into history and look at what was said, determine what was said in a particular historical context, and then compare that with something different that's being said today and say, hey, there's a problem here.

There's a contradiction here. Oh, no. You see, we have to rely upon the infallible Church to tell us even what it taught way back when, and it doesn't matter what it taught way back when. It doesn't matter what history says took place way back when.

The simple fact of the matter is the Church tells you it's always taught the same thing. The Church tells you it's infallible, therefore, it's infallible period of indiscussion. That's it. See, that's what happens with sola ecclesia.

The Church can no longer be examined historically. The Church can no longer be corrected theologically. You cannot look at the theology of Rome and hold it accountable to the Bible. When we finish this look at sola scriptura, we'll take the time to look at what Rome teaches about Mary as the greatest example of this, the greatest example of what happens when you make the Church infallible, when you give to the Church an authority that the Church itself was never to have.

And another thing we're going to do is we're going to look at the magazine that I have in my hand right now. This is the July-August 1998 edition of Envoy magazine. Envoy magazine is published by Patrick Madrid.

He is the former vice president of Catholic Answers. He went off and started his own magazine. Very nice magazine. Very well done. Glossy paper and so on and so forth. On the cover of the July-August 1998 edition, which I think is pretty much the current one, I think they're a little bit behind right now, you have what's supposed to be me.

And I am sitting there and it isn't me. I wouldn't be caught dead wearing the tie that this person is wearing. Anyone who knows me knows that's the case. But be that as it may, it's supposed to be me.

And I'm peering through a mask and the mask is of one of the early Church fathers and the title is Who is that Masked Man? A Baptist Tries to Hijack the Early Church. You know how he'd be punished in Singapore, don't you?

That's the title that appears on the front cover of the magazine. Oh, at the top of the magazine, it says Inquisition. We will we will rack you. Yes, that's what it says. I'm not making this up. The level of humor is a little bit unusual in this particular magazine.

But we'll be looking at an article that appeared in there called Ancient Baptists and Other Myths. And this is yet another one of the examples of the fact that the Roman Catholic apologetic community will not deal with the issues.

They won't deal with the issues. They wrote this entire article based upon a gross misrepresentation of my Christian Research Journal article called What Really Happened at Nicaea. They try to make it sound as if I'm saying all the early Church fathers were Baptists, when of course I would never make such a silly statement, but they want their readers to think that.

They didn't bother to mention my name anywhere. They didn't bother to tell their readers how they could read my article. It's undoubtedly one of the most unscholarly ways of approaching something, but it'll give us a good example of how the facts can be twisted, shall we say, to make it look like history taught something that history did not.

And it also will be a very useful examination of the fact that Roman Catholic apologists don't like to go toe-to-toe. They don't like to come out in the open and go one-on-one and let the facts speak for themselves.

They would prefer instead to hide behind hit articles like this. We will be posting an entire discussion of the article on our website, which is www .aomin .org, and I hope you all will be looking for that in the near future when it is posted.

Lord willing, this week, by the way, for those of you who have a special interest in Mormonism, there will be a fairly lengthy article being posted on our webpage, specifically in response to the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, and that will be in regards to the scholarship of the leaders of farms as they attempt to address the history of the Church, again, same basic area, and in defending the idea that Mormonism is Christian.

So if you have access to the web, keep a close eye at www .aomin .org and be looking for new items that are being added regularly, both on Mormonism as well as on Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower Society, Roman Catholicism, History of the Bible, you name it.

We keep trying to put things there on the site and help you out with that type of information. So please take advantage of that. And also, if you would like to get some more information about some of the things we've been talking about, maybe something I said went zooming by you way too quickly, which I recognize happens, you can get a hold of us here locally at area code 602 -973 -4602.

That's 973 -4602. You can get a hold of my new book, The Forgotten Trinity. If you are having, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses coming over, if you have any questions in regards to the Bible's teaching about the doctrine of the Trinity, monotheism, the deity of Christ, the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, the existence of three persons, the teachings of some groups like the oneness groups, it's all covered in this new book that I'm very thankful has just come out from.

Bethany House Publishers called The Forgotten Trinity. And that is available from us at Alpha Omega Ministries 973 -4602. Thank you for being with us today. God bless you and be with us again next week here on The Dividing Line.

The Dividing Line is a presentation of Alpha and Omega Ministries. You can contact us at 602 -973 -0318 or you can write us at P .O. Box 37106 Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. We are easy to find on the World Wide Web at www .aomin .org.

That's www .aomin .org. You can also find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks on our website. We hope you will join us again next Saturday afternoon at 1 .30pm for The Dividing Line.