1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:15,600
So let's just briefly kind of get into some of the biblical evidence for Sola Scriptura.

2
00:00:15,600 --> 00:00:20,920
And if you're talking to, say, a Roman Catholic apologist, somebody who is a defender of Roman

3
00:00:20,920 --> 00:00:26,360
Catholicism, especially people who have converted from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism, usually

4
00:00:26,360 --> 00:00:31,799
a non-historical Protestantism, where they read the Fathers, all of a sudden they're amazed at the

5
00:00:31,799 --> 00:00:35,160
things that were taught. They don't sound like Protestants, therefore they become Roman Catholic.

6
00:00:35,160 --> 00:00:40,840
It's often the way that it works itself out. But for a Lutheran or Anglican, it's, I think,

7
00:00:40,840 --> 00:00:44,599
quite a bit different in the way that we look at the Fathers, because we do see,

8
00:00:44,599 --> 00:00:48,040
hey, this is very similar to what we're saying and teaching and how we're worshiping today as well.

9
00:00:49,720 --> 00:00:53,240
But if you're talking to a Roman Catholic apologist, when they're speaking about Sola

10
00:00:53,240 --> 00:00:58,200
Scriptura, they're always going to raise the same statement over and over again. You're going

11
00:00:58,200 --> 00:01:03,560
to hear this if you're looking at Roman Catholic apologetics or recent converts to Rome, and that is

12
00:01:03,560 --> 00:01:09,800
Scripture never teaches Sola Scriptura. So you are holding Scripture as the ultimate authority.

13
00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:14,919
However, Scripture itself never says that it is the only authority. Therefore, you're contradicting

14
00:01:14,919 --> 00:01:18,599
yourself, because necessarily you're going outside of Scripture to say that Scripture is the only

15
00:01:18,599 --> 00:01:23,160
standard, and therefore we can throw out Sola Scriptura. So the Bible doesn't teach Sola

16
00:01:23,160 --> 00:01:29,639
Scriptura, therefore Sola Scriptura is false, based on the inherent principles of Protestantism

17
00:01:29,639 --> 00:01:35,239
and Sola Scriptura itself. So it's self-contradictory. That's basically the argument that you're going to

18
00:01:35,239 --> 00:01:39,639
hear more than any other when you're talking to somebody about Sola Scriptura. So what do we do

19
00:01:39,639 --> 00:01:45,239
with that? I think the question that we have is, do we have to find a particular Scripture that

20
00:01:45,239 --> 00:01:51,959
says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don't think we have to. We don't. There's nothing

21
00:01:51,959 --> 00:01:56,440
in, you know, you can't find, you know, in any of Paul's letters, for example, it's like he says to

22
00:01:56,440 --> 00:02:00,599
the Romans, by the way, Scripture is the only authority, and traditions are not an authority,

23
00:02:00,599 --> 00:02:05,639
and there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible

24
00:02:05,639 --> 00:02:11,320
teachings, which it seems like a lot of Roman Catholic apologists think that for Protestants to

25
00:02:11,320 --> 00:02:17,800
defend their position that they have to find a text that says that. No, I think more so what we

26
00:02:17,800 --> 00:02:23,240
have to do is just speak about the unique authority of Scripture and the unique nature of Scripture,

27
00:02:23,880 --> 00:02:32,039
and just to say that Scripture does present itself as God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3.16 is kind of

28
00:02:32,039 --> 00:02:36,520
the famous text that says this, that all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking,

29
00:02:36,520 --> 00:02:40,600
correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly or sufficiently

30
00:02:40,600 --> 00:02:46,119
equipped for every good work. Now there are some important things, I think, that are taught

31
00:02:46,119 --> 00:02:52,279
in that text. One is that Scripture is God-breathed. It is breathed out by God. That in and of itself

32
00:02:52,279 --> 00:02:58,039
is not said of anything else, so it inherently gives Scripture a uniqueness that nothing else

33
00:02:58,039 --> 00:03:05,399
has. We are never told that there is a tradition or a set of traditions or a magisterium that are

34
00:03:05,479 --> 00:03:11,479
God-breathed in the same sense that Scripture itself is. So we do have something that is so

35
00:03:11,479 --> 00:03:20,199
clearly stated about the uniqueness of Scripture, and I think where Rome goes is to say that, well,

36
00:03:20,199 --> 00:03:23,639
the burden of proof is on you to say there's nothing else that's God-breathed or nothing

37
00:03:23,639 --> 00:03:28,839
else that has this unique authority, and I would say the opposite, to say that Scripture places

38
00:03:29,399 --> 00:03:34,360
as this authority that is so connected to God Himself that He breathed it out,

39
00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:39,720
that the burden is really on them to prove that anything else has those characteristics.

40
00:03:40,279 --> 00:03:47,880
So I turn it around, and I don't think the burden of proof is on us to try to prove

41
00:03:47,880 --> 00:03:53,479
this isn't God-breathed or this doesn't have that same kind of sense of authority,

42
00:03:53,479 --> 00:03:57,960
because there are various groups that claim all sorts of things are on par with Scripture

43
00:03:58,039 --> 00:04:01,639
or are on an equal level with Scripture in terms of divine inspiration,

44
00:04:01,639 --> 00:04:06,119
and the burden of proof is not on me to prove that all of those things are false.

45
00:04:06,679 --> 00:04:12,520
I don't have a burden of proof to demonstrate that every false prophet out there in the world

46
00:04:13,720 --> 00:04:18,279
who claims that they're infallibly teaching the things that are given to them by the Spirit or

47
00:04:18,279 --> 00:04:23,959
that there are some new Messiah or all of these kinds of groups, the burden is not on me to prove

48
00:04:23,959 --> 00:04:29,160
that they don't have that divine authority. The burden on them is to prove that they do

49
00:04:29,160 --> 00:04:33,160
have some kind of divine authority that is equal with the uniqueness of Scripture.

50
00:04:33,160 --> 00:04:38,679
So that's the first point. I think we're coming from different starting points in terms of

51
00:04:38,679 --> 00:04:44,920
who has to prove what. So I fundamentally deny that principle at all, that to prove

52
00:04:44,920 --> 00:04:51,320
sola scriptura you have to prove that the Bible says sola scriptura somewhere. No, I think that

53
00:04:51,399 --> 00:04:56,519
is just a conviction that comes out of the uniqueness of Scripture and what Scripture is.

54
00:04:56,519 --> 00:05:01,000
You have to prove that something else has that uniqueness that Scripture itself has and claims

55
00:05:01,000 --> 00:05:06,600
for itself, and I don't think that tradition in the various forms that one tries to speak about it

56
00:05:07,320 --> 00:05:11,640
has that. The other thing that is important in that text is it does say that

57
00:05:12,279 --> 00:05:18,839
Scripture is sufficient to equip one in every good work, and it outlines those things for

58
00:05:19,799 --> 00:05:23,399
you as being teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

59
00:05:23,399 --> 00:05:30,839
So there certainly is a sense in 1 Timothy that Scripture has a sufficiency or the sufficiency

60
00:05:30,839 --> 00:05:36,119
of Scripture to equip for every good work, which includes all of those things connected to

61
00:05:36,119 --> 00:05:40,760
teaching. So teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. So there is a unique

62
00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:46,760
authority. The unique authority of Scripture in that it is God-bred gives it that sufficiency,

63
00:05:46,760 --> 00:05:52,040
and so it is sufficient to equip one in good works that include teaching because of its unique

64
00:05:52,040 --> 00:05:58,119
character. Now that I think is as close of a text as you're going to get that proves sola

65
00:05:58,119 --> 00:06:03,399
scriptura. Not that the point of the text is to say let's compare Scripture to tradition and

66
00:06:03,399 --> 00:06:06,440
different kinds of authority and levels of authority. That's not the point of the text,

67
00:06:07,239 --> 00:06:13,320
but it does speak about the unique authority of Scripture as being theanoustos or God-breathed

68
00:06:13,320 --> 00:06:20,519
being connected to its sufficiency in equipping one for good works and for teaching. Now the

69
00:06:20,519 --> 00:06:26,200
rebuttal to that from Rome is always going to be the same, which is, well, when that particular

70
00:06:26,200 --> 00:06:32,040
text was written, the entirety of the New Testament was being written, so it's not yet

71
00:06:32,040 --> 00:06:37,239
totally written. Therefore, he's speaking only of the Old Testament, and if you take that to

72
00:06:37,239 --> 00:06:42,359
be speaking about the sufficiency of Scripture, then it's only speaking about the sufficiency

73
00:06:42,359 --> 00:06:47,320
of the Old Testament and not at all the New Testament, and then you have a problem because

74
00:06:48,119 --> 00:06:51,559
Protestants who believe in sola scriptura believe in the authority of the Old and New Testaments

75
00:06:51,559 --> 00:06:55,640
when they're saying sola scriptura. But I kind of think that that's really missing the point of the

76
00:06:55,640 --> 00:06:59,959
text. The point of the text is not really to outline what the books of the Bible are. It's

77
00:06:59,959 --> 00:07:04,600
just speaking about the nature of Scripture. So it is true that it is in the nature of Scripture,

78
00:07:04,600 --> 00:07:08,200
whether he's speaking about the Old and New Testament, that it is the thing that makes one

79
00:07:08,200 --> 00:07:16,279
sufficient in those good works. And so if that is true of the Old Testament and what had been

80
00:07:16,279 --> 00:07:19,880
written of the New Testament at this time, and there can be some debate about that and exactly

81
00:07:19,880 --> 00:07:25,320
which books had been written or understood as Scripture or transmitted at that point in any

82
00:07:25,320 --> 00:07:30,839
broad sense at all, but it's speaking about the nature of what Scripture is. So I think it would

83
00:07:30,839 --> 00:07:35,160
be the understanding that in terms of the sufficiency of what Scripture is for, if New

84
00:07:35,160 --> 00:07:38,920
Testament books are written and continuing to be written, including First Timothy itself,

85
00:07:38,920 --> 00:07:45,559
they would have that same unique character as well that the Old Testament did have. So I think that

86
00:07:45,559 --> 00:07:49,880
there is, if there's any proof text for sola scriptura, that would be the closest one that

87
00:07:49,880 --> 00:07:54,040
there is because of the uniqueness and the sufficiency of Scripture that is taught there.

88
00:07:54,040 --> 00:08:01,320
But at the same time, I don't think you have to necessarily prove that the Bible says sola

89
00:08:01,399 --> 00:08:05,959
scriptura in so many words. It is in terms of the uniqueness and authority of Scripture,

90
00:08:05,959 --> 00:08:10,839
you have to prove that there is something else that is given that authority outside of Scripture.

91
00:08:11,640 --> 00:08:17,399
So the other place that I would go is from Matthew 15, and this is a text that is cited

92
00:08:18,279 --> 00:08:22,600
many times in the relationship between Scripture and tradition. It's discussed a lot if you read,

93
00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:27,559
you know, Martin Kamenetz or Luther or a lot of people at the time of the Reformation or in the

94
00:08:27,559 --> 00:08:32,919
post-Reformation scholastic era, because this is really the heart of the debate in many ways,

95
00:08:32,919 --> 00:08:38,679
because if tradition was given this equal authority to Scripture, then I shouldn't be

96
00:08:38,679 --> 00:08:42,200
Lutheran. I shouldn't be any kind of Protestant. I should be either Eastern Orthodox or Roman

97
00:08:42,200 --> 00:08:49,559
Catholic. And a lot of what, if you read the, you know, the earlier Lutheran writers, someone like

98
00:08:49,559 --> 00:08:54,840
Kamenetz or Gerhard or others, where they are going to focus a lot of their attention is on

99
00:08:55,400 --> 00:09:03,239
proving the contradictions in the Roman tradition itself and rebutting the claims of this

100
00:09:03,239 --> 00:09:08,280
absolute historical continuity and consistency that happens in Rome. I think they're

101
00:09:08,280 --> 00:09:14,440
absolutely right, and those are very good ways to argue, but today we're dealing a lot more with

102
00:09:14,440 --> 00:09:18,200
Eastern Orthodoxy, I think, especially within Lutheranism, because it's something that is

103
00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:24,039
more attractive to people than Roman Catholicism is, especially because of the, well, the liberalism

104
00:09:24,039 --> 00:09:30,919
that's snuck into Rome since Vatican II. It's hard to kind of take those absolutist claims of

105
00:09:30,919 --> 00:09:35,880
historical consistency seriously at all. I really can't do it, and the more I study the history of

106
00:09:35,880 --> 00:09:43,000
Rome and the papacy and read the Fathers and then switch to reading Roman Catholic writers today,

107
00:09:43,000 --> 00:09:48,760
that there's such an inconsistency that I'm not even slightly convinced of any claims of

108
00:09:48,760 --> 00:09:55,239
continuity at all. So that's not even a temptation at all. But Eastern Orthodoxy is different in that

109
00:09:56,679 --> 00:10:00,039
it has a lot more behind it, I think, in terms of consistency with the early church,

110
00:10:00,599 --> 00:10:07,559
and it doesn't have all this baggage that Rome has. So I think the problem

111
00:10:07,559 --> 00:10:12,200
in looking at some of the early Lutheran writers is that they spend so much time just dealing with

112
00:10:12,200 --> 00:10:17,400
the claims of Rome's tradition that they don't spend as much time just interacting with sola

113
00:10:17,400 --> 00:10:22,599
scriptura as a doctrine, dealing with tradition itself as a whole, because they're only thinking

114
00:10:22,599 --> 00:10:28,840
in terms of Rome. They're not thinking so much in terms of the East. But let's look at a text from

115
00:10:28,840 --> 00:10:37,960
Matthew 15, and this is a text that speaks about the relationship between scripture

116
00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:43,159
and tradition, and it speaks about the relationship between scripture and tradition in relation to the

117
00:10:43,159 --> 00:10:47,239
teaching of the scribes and the Pharisees. So this is Matthew 15, starting in verse 1.

118
00:10:47,799 --> 00:10:51,479
Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, Why do your

119
00:10:51,479 --> 00:10:56,280
disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat

120
00:10:56,280 --> 00:11:00,919
bread. He answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandments of God because of

121
00:11:00,919 --> 00:11:05,400
your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honor your father and your mother, and he who curses

122
00:11:05,400 --> 00:11:10,280
father and mother, let him be put to death. But you say, Whoever says to his father or mother,

123
00:11:10,280 --> 00:11:14,520
Whatever prophet you might have received from me as a gift to God, then he need not honor his

124
00:11:14,520 --> 00:11:18,440
father or mother. Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.

125
00:11:18,440 --> 00:11:24,520
Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying, These people draw near to me with their

126
00:11:24,520 --> 00:11:28,679
mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. In vain do they worship

127
00:11:28,679 --> 00:11:36,599
me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. So what we have here is a claim about an

128
00:11:36,599 --> 00:11:44,039
infallible tradition that is passed down from Moses and its relationship to scripture. And I

129
00:11:44,039 --> 00:11:50,119
think what we see here is a principle that we can apply today, which is so let's look at the claims

130
00:11:50,119 --> 00:11:54,359
of Rome and the claims of the Jews. And I think this is important because Chemnitz points this

131
00:11:54,359 --> 00:12:01,080
out a lot, which is there's a lot of similarity between the claims of an infallible tradition

132
00:12:01,080 --> 00:12:06,359
passed on through the magisterium and the claims of an infallible tradition being passed on through

133
00:12:06,359 --> 00:12:11,159
the scribes and Pharisees that come down from Moses. And so the Jews in the first century had

134
00:12:11,159 --> 00:12:19,080
a very similar notion that scripture itself is an authority, but there also are these other

135
00:12:19,080 --> 00:12:24,119
authorities, which are the sayings of, well, laws given by Moses, which become the sayings of the

136
00:12:24,119 --> 00:12:28,359
scribes and Pharisees. We think today of something like the Babylonian Talmud that is written down

137
00:12:28,359 --> 00:12:35,960
after the New Testament. But we have then these infallible traditions and what those infallible

138
00:12:35,960 --> 00:12:42,520
traditions do is serve to interpret scripture. And so if you're going to interpret various laws,

139
00:12:42,520 --> 00:12:48,119
for example, the Sabbath and what it means that we are to rest on the Sabbath. So look at that

140
00:12:48,119 --> 00:12:53,159
tradition or that commandment that's clear in scripture. Now we have various traditions that

141
00:12:53,159 --> 00:13:00,679
are passed on. We have Halakha and Haggadah, which are these kind of expansions of the Old Testament

142
00:13:00,679 --> 00:13:05,719
in terms of both narrative form as well as in terms of various laws and how those laws are

143
00:13:05,719 --> 00:13:10,119
developed. So we have within that, you know, say the command of the Sabbath, now we have various

144
00:13:10,119 --> 00:13:15,719
particular traditions would say this is now our guide to interpreting scripture. And that guide

145
00:13:15,719 --> 00:13:22,359
to interpreting scripture includes all of these various ways that we are to fulfill those

146
00:13:22,359 --> 00:13:31,080
commandments. And then it becomes not just scripture alone, but scripture as it is understood

147
00:13:31,080 --> 00:13:36,200
through these various traditions that have been said to be orally passed down by Moses. So it was

148
00:13:36,200 --> 00:13:41,799
taught that Moses had the written law and the oral law, which resulted in the situation that we have

149
00:13:41,799 --> 00:13:48,760
in the first century with the various traditions that Jesus himself is often judged by. So we

150
00:13:48,760 --> 00:13:53,320
certainly have a parallel. And I think it's really hard not to see the parallel between

151
00:13:54,440 --> 00:14:01,159
what we have in Rome and what we have in Judaism, which is we have two competing things. We have one

152
00:14:01,159 --> 00:14:05,960
that says there's this tradition and then there's scripture. And the tradition is said to simply

153
00:14:05,960 --> 00:14:11,080
interpret scripture or help us to understand scripture or give us the kind of infallible,

154
00:14:11,080 --> 00:14:14,840
not that the Jews are using that particular term at this time of the first century, but the same

155
00:14:14,840 --> 00:14:21,320
concept nonetheless, this kind of infallible interpreter of what scripture really means.

156
00:14:22,599 --> 00:14:28,599
And it's in that context that Jesus does set up some principles that I think are valid for the

157
00:14:28,599 --> 00:14:35,000
church today. And the principle is that there can be indeed opposition between tradition

158
00:14:35,559 --> 00:14:43,320
and scripture. And when scripture and tradition are at odds, it is scripture that is the thing

159
00:14:43,320 --> 00:14:50,440
that gets the final say. So scripture has this kind of overriding power over tradition. So if

160
00:14:50,440 --> 00:14:53,559
scripture says something and tradition says something, scripture wins every time.

161
00:14:55,159 --> 00:14:59,320
And it's not just that we have to always interpret scripture in light of the various

162
00:14:59,320 --> 00:15:05,400
supposed infallible traditions that have been passed down as ways to interpret scripture.

163
00:15:06,440 --> 00:15:11,479
So we have that going on in the first century, which is very much parallel to what's happening

164
00:15:12,200 --> 00:15:17,320
throughout the late middle ages when we arrive at the time period of the Reformation. Now,

165
00:15:18,760 --> 00:15:22,280
what Roman Catholic apologists do when they approach this text is they're always going to

166
00:15:22,280 --> 00:15:28,599
say, well, this is just condemning a particular kind of tradition, and that is the traditions

167
00:15:28,599 --> 00:15:32,359
of men, because that's the phrase that Jesus uses. So the difference is Rome doesn't teach

168
00:15:32,359 --> 00:15:38,440
the traditions of men, but the Jews who had supposedly had this infallible set of teachings

169
00:15:38,440 --> 00:15:42,760
and interpretations of scripture, they were teaching traditions of men. And that leaves a

170
00:15:42,760 --> 00:15:47,960
question, though, which is to say, well, according to what? How do you judge one as a tradition of

171
00:15:47,960 --> 00:15:52,599
men and the other not as a tradition of men? Because they're making pretty much the same

172
00:15:52,599 --> 00:15:59,960
claims. And so the first century Jews are making the same claims, and they could point out to Jesus

173
00:15:59,960 --> 00:16:05,000
here the same thing. They could say, hey, Jesus, where does the Old Testament say that the Old

174
00:16:05,000 --> 00:16:08,760
Testament is the only authority and not the traditions of men? You see, they could use the

175
00:16:08,760 --> 00:16:15,320
same argument. But of course, that wouldn't work with Jesus. But why is that any different? Again,

176
00:16:15,320 --> 00:16:20,520
the burden of proof was on them to show when Jesus says, hey, there's opposition between

177
00:16:20,520 --> 00:16:25,320
scripture and the traditions, the burden of proof is on then the Pharisees to go back and say, no,

178
00:16:25,320 --> 00:16:29,719
here is where we know that these traditions are indeed true and infallible and correct,

179
00:16:29,719 --> 00:16:35,640
and they really came from Moses. But Jesus gives us a way to interpret that relationship

180
00:16:35,640 --> 00:16:39,799
between scripture and tradition, which is scripture overrides tradition when there is

181
00:16:39,799 --> 00:16:47,320
a contradiction between the two. And, you know, Jesus doesn't then make some distinction to say,

182
00:16:47,320 --> 00:16:50,599
well, this is traditions of men, but there also are these other traditions which are on par with

183
00:16:50,599 --> 00:16:54,520
scripture, and those are ones passed on by God. And by the way, here's how you know the difference.

184
00:16:54,520 --> 00:16:59,159
He certainly seems to be functioning on a sola scriptura kind of principle when he is evaluating

185
00:16:59,159 --> 00:17:03,960
the traditions of the Jews. And I don't see any reason why we shouldn't apply that same

186
00:17:03,960 --> 00:17:06,920
principle in the way that we look at traditions in the church as well.