Sola Scriptura and the Authority of the Church.

.



One of the important questions in Christianity is the relationship between Scripture and the Church. A particularly contentious issue is question of the authority of the Church in relation to the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. An interesting idea would be to look at just what scripture has say about the authority of the Church? Let us look!


First of all it is Christ’s Church.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20)

There are many things that can be pulled out of the that passage, the important ones for out purpose are:

1 Jesus founded the Church.
2 It is His Church.
3. He promised that the gates of death (Hell or Hades in other translations) will not prevail against it.
4. One might disagree on the full extent of the “binding and loosing” but no one cannot deny that in some sense the Church is connected with authority to “bind and loose.”
5. Christ founded a Church and promised it some sort of protection, and some sort of authority.



Christ described a role for the exercise of the Church's authority

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18 15:20)

There are some key points we can pull out of this passage for our purpose, again there is much more in it.

1. The paragraph after this is where Jesus talks about forgiving 7 times 70 times. I think this context is to make sure that 18:15-20 is not understood to apply where forgiveness is enough but when the sin is something that is very harmful and needs to be corrected.
2. Notice when you cannot resolve the issue privately you take it to the Church. If the Church decides the issue and the other person (or yourself if the decision goes the other way) refuses to listen “even to the Church” treat the person as a gentile and a tax collector.
3. Notice the word even as though it is hard to imagine some one refusing to listen to the Church Christ established.
4. The famous quote of where “two or three are gathered in my name” is clearly associated with the Church.
5. In the context of dealing with serious sin he instructs the Apostles that what they “bind and loose” as the leaders of the Church is “bound or loosed.”




In Acts we see the Church acting according to Christ’s instructions.

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses."

The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider
this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, 'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old. 'Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues."

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:1-29)

Some points we can pull from this passage.

1. The “party of the Pharisees” created a crisis in Antioch that could not be forgiven and dismissed. There was a sin of heresy that challenged the integrity of the Gospel
2. The Church at Antioch tried to resolve the issue locally.
3. They brought in or witnesses to help mediate the situation, who better than Paul and Barnabas.
4. Unable to reach a decision locally the matter was referred to the Church as a whole represented in the persons of the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
5. The church made a decision.
6. The decision bound the whole church not just Jerusalem.
7. Certainly, as far more than two were gathered in His Name, Christ was with them.
8. If this had not been the decision, would not “the gates of Hell” have prevailed against the Church?




Elsewhere the New Testament

shows the Church as being essential to spreading the truth of the Gospel.

”that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.”(Eph 3:10)

”I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:14-15

It is in the Church that the manifold wisdom of God becomes known. “The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” Of course, this makes sense since the Church is the Body of Christ and He is the way, truth and the life.


Conclusion

While there are different opinions on the extent of it’s authority, it is apparent that the Bible teaches that the Church has a clear authority of its own to "bind and loose" on questions of the content of Christian teaching that goes far beyond what is possible if the sola scriptura is the sole rule of faith.


See the related post Scripture and Tradition

Scripture and Tradition

Frequently the role of Tradition, as understood in the Catholic and Orthodox faiths, is challenged as an authoritative basis for Christian teaching. It is suggested that the rule should be sola scriptura or “the bible is the sole rule of faith.” To understand this issue we need to answer the question “what does the Bible teach about Tradition?”



Before we start we need to eliminate a meaning in English. In English the word "tradition" can have a meaning of "custom". It is traditional to "drive on right side of the road." Certainly every church has customs and as long has they help the presentation of the Gospel they are certainly commendable.



Paul tells us tradition is important:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Cor 11:2

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Thes 2:15

If we are not “standing firm and holding the traditions” we are missing the teaching of scripture. But what would we be missing?



The Greek word in the New Testament for tradition is not only a noun "paradosis" as in English, but also has a verb form "paradidonai" "which is usually translated with terms like "received" or "delivered" (but received and delivered do not always translate "paradidonai"). This keeps a simple check in a search engine from seeing the full meaning of the term. The NASB captures the idea when it sometimes translates tradition as teaching. Tradition is sometimes explained as transmitted or transmission. A tradition is a teaching that is transmitted.

(References: "Dictionary of the Bible" John L. McKenzie S. J., Collier Books. "Dictionary of Biblical Theology", Xavier Leon Dufour S.J., St Paul Books and Media.)

To understand Tradition we should begin with Jesus Christ. Jesus taught There is only one recorded instance of his writing and we don’t know what he wrote (John 8.) The Apostles and disciples taught what Jesus taught and what they had seen with their own eyes. This public Revelation is closed with the death of the Apostle John. The first Christians transmitted this teaching to the next generation. Every generation has faithfully transmitted the teaching to the next.

This transmission of the teaching of Jesus left “footprints” if you will. In every generation (actually starting before the death of the Apostle John 96 AD +-) we have records of what was taught. We can see that the teaching today is the same as the teaching in the 1st Century and at every time in between. If some one is trying to sneak in some novelty it’s difference from what had gone before will standout. If it is not part of the teaching the Church received from the Apostles we should be able to assign name, place, and date to it.

This does not mean the Tradition is a dead explanation. In each place generation the teaching is transmitted so it can be understood by those who receive it. Or since “faith comes by hearing,” the tradition is what is heard. Without changing the teaching of Jesus we come to have a better understanding of the Tradition. This happens especially in response to heresies when it becomes necessary to clarify the true understanding.

The Bible is at the center of the Tradition. The testimony of the Apostles and their associates is recorded in the Bible under the inerrant inspiration of the Holy Sprit. The entirety of the revelation is contained in the explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. This provides the basic facts on which the teaching (Tradition) is based.

Thus we can see that it is not a question of Scripture or Tradition, or even Scripture and Tradition. Scripture is a part of the Tradition. Actually the most important part. Scripture is received and handed on in each generation.


A very good example is 1 Cor 15:3 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received . . . " What is this tradition (teaching) that Paul received and delivered (transmitted)?
"that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles." 1 Cor 15:3-7.

Obviously when some one says they do not recognize tradition, I'm sure they are using excessively overstated hyperbole to make a point; they are not denying this tradition that Paul received and delivered to the Corinthians.

Of course this tradition was not just delivered to the Corinthians, but all the Apostles and disciples delivered the same tradition wherever they preached.

This tradition points out that Jesus rose from the dead. Some modern "experts" are trying to say this means "spiritually rose" or "rose in their hearts" or any thing except He bodily rose. How do we know the scripture means bodily rose? Because that tradition (teaching) that he bodily rose has been received by every generation since then and delivered (transmitted) to the next. In every generation there are commentaries, sermons, hymns, prayers, etc that make it clear this tradition is the true teaching. If we go by "sola scriptura" we would ignore this evidence, line up our verses and they would line up theirs (often the same verses) and say “my opinion of what the text means is better than yours.” We would have no means settling the question except who can yell the loudest, but decibel level is not a proof of truth. If we recognize the authority of Tradition we know that Jesus rose bodily from the dead because this is the constant Tradition (teaching) for 2000 years.



What about "Traditions of Men"?

Jesus, as does Paul, rightly denounces the Pharisees who added their own made up traditions to the Traditions (teachings) of Moses and the Prophets

Jesus: So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God Matt 15:6

Paul: See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. Col 2:8

If the modern "Experts" keep misleading long enough, what they are delivering will be received in some places and a "tradition of men" that certainly "makes void the very word of God" will have been created. This is why theological liberals consistently deny or devalue tradition. Tradition makes it impossible to introduce new teachings that deny what was received from the Apostles.

By looking at the whole of Tradition, both scripture and the teaching that has accompanied it, we make sure that we have a sound interpretation and not a personal opinion. After all, having been influenced by the culture of the time and place I was raised, I could easily unintentionally read something in to scripture that the Holy Sprit never intended. But I also look to see what was received in every generation in many different cultures, I can be very confident that I believe what Jesus and the Apostles taught. If I am “standing firm and holding the traditions” (Thes 2:15) that have been held in every generation I am holding the traditions that Paul taught the Corinthians.

An example. The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have delivered some new traditions (teachings) that in addition to mangling the text were clearly invented by known men at known dates and places. They specifily deny teachings that have been held for 2000 years. Thus these are traditions of men. They are “traditions of men that make void the very word of God.” I think it is interesting that I have never heard a Evangelical point this out. In addition to pointing out the numerous Biblical inconsistencies, I think it is pointing out that they are “traditions of men” would be a convincing argument in their congregations.



Another example. The tradition (teaching) of "Sola Scriptura" was delivered to the church at the Diet of Worms in April 1521 by Friar Martin Luther; about 1400 years after the death of the Apostle John. It has been received and delivered in the Protestant Churches ever since. There is no mention of this tradition before then. "Sola Scripura" is a human tradition, not part of the Traditions Paul delivered to the Thessolians by "word of mouth or by letter", or any of the Apostles delivered to the Church.

If we start with "the Bible is the sole rule of faith" we have to realize that Paul's injunction "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thes 2:15) is a biblical directive to also use Tradition as a rule of faith. The plain words of scripture contradict the basic definition of “sola scriptura”, "the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

One might say that though a tradition “Sola Scriptura” could be considered useful if we do not elevate it to the point of doctrine. An apologetic or teaching device.

Since “Sola Scriptura” teaches us to reject traditions of men, but as a tradition of men itself, it is hopelessly contradictory.


See Sola Scriptura and the Authority of the Chuch