![\"BennettRichard\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/02\/BennettRichard.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n\n<\/span>Former Catholic priest Fr. Richard Bennett is a prominent anti-Catholic apologist, and editor (with Martin Buckingham) of\u00a0<\/a>Far from Rome, Near to God: The Testimonies of 50 Converted Catholic Priests<\/i><\/a>\u00a0(Lafayette, Indiana: Associated Publishers & Authors, Inc., 1994). Fr. Bennett\u2019s paper, which will be refuted below, is entitled \u201cIt is Written:\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/i>,\u201d and is\u00a0available online<\/a>.<\/div>\n
Fr. Richard Bennett\u2019s words will be in\u00a0<\/span>blue<\/span>. The sub-titles are his, from the original paper (the Roman numerals have been added, for reference purposes). They will be colored\u00a0<\/span>brown<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n I. SCRIPTURE ALONE IS INSPIRED AND INHERENTLY AUTHORITATIVE\u00a0<\/span><\/strong> God\u2019s declaration in Scripture is that it and it alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals. Thus there is only one written source from God, and there is only one basis of truth for the Lord\u2019s people in the Church.<\/span> Mark 4:33<\/strong> With many such parables he spoke the word to them . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, by implication, many parables are not recorded in Scripture.<\/p>\n Mark 6:34<\/strong> . . . he began to teach them many things.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n None of these \u201cmany things\u201d are recorded here.<\/p>\n John 16:12<\/strong> I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Perhaps these many things were spoken during His post-Resurrection appearances alluded to in Acts 1:2-3 (see far below). Very few of these teachings are recorded, and those which are contain only minimal detail.<\/p>\n John 20:30<\/strong> Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n John 21:25<\/strong> But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n II. THE TRUTH AND THE SCRIPTURE<\/span><\/strong> Furthermore, \u201cWord\u201d in Holy Scripture quite often refers to a proclaimed, oral word of prophets or apostles, not only to the written word later compiled as the Bible. Prophets spoke the word of God, whether or not their utterances were later recorded as written Scripture (undoubtedly much of their preaching was\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>recorded for posterity, just as in the case of, for example, John the Baptist). This is utterly obvious, and can be profusely documented. So for example, we read in Jeremiah 25:1-9 (NIV):<\/p>\n 1 The\u00a0word<\/b>\u00a0came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. 2 So Jeremiah the prophet said to all the people of Judah and to all those living in Jerusalem: 3\u00a0For twenty-three years<\/b>-from the thirteenth year of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah until this very day-the\u00a0word of the LORD<\/b>\u00a0has come to me and\u00a0I have spoken to you again and again<\/b>, but you have not listened. 4 And though the LORD has sent all his servants the prophets to you again and again, you have not listened or paid any attention. 5 They said, \u201cTurn now, each of you, from your evil ways and your evil practices, and you can stay in the land the LORD gave to you and your fathers for ever and ever. 6 Do not follow other gods to serve and worship them; do not provoke me to anger with what your hands have made. Then I will not harm you.\u201d Note how the Lord equates His words with those of Jeremiah. Jeremiah, as God\u2019s prophet, spoke His words, when they \u201ccame to\u201d him. This was the\u00a0word of God<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0word of the Lord<\/i>\u00a0whether or not<\/i>\u00a0it was recorded in writing and\u00a0whether or not\u00a0<\/i>it made it into later canonized Scripture. It had\u00a0equal authority<\/i>\u00a0in writing or as proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was also true of the Apostle Paul and other apostles, as will be shown below. When the phrases\u00a0word of God<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0word of the Lord\u00a0<\/i>appear in Acts and the Epistles, they almost alway refer to\u00a0oral preaching<\/i>, not to Scripture. For example:<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:13<\/strong> . . . when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the word of God . . . (see also 2 Thessalonians 3:6 below)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Equally obviously, no one would be foolish enough to claim that\u00a0every<\/i>\u00a0sermon and plea and prophetic warning of Jeremiah or any of the other prophets was recorded in writing and preserved in the Bible. In one long night alone, if Jeremiah had kept talking, that would add up to more words than we have in the entire book named for him. If this had been the \u201cword of the Lord,\u201d it would not have been recorded, just as, for example, Jesus\u2019 words explaining the messianic prophecies concerning Himself, to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, were not recorded, but they were true, and inspired, since they came from Jesus Himself (see Luke 24:26-27). The hearers of both Jeremiah and Jesus were bound to obey their words. Thus, the words carried a binding authority before they were written down and regardless of whether they were\u00a0ever\u00a0<\/i>later written down. This realization refutes Mr. Bennett\u2019s words above.<\/p>\n In the New Testament, it is the written word of God and that alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority. In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, \u201cIt is written\u201d as for example, in Matthew 4:4, \u201che answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.\u201d In stating \u201cIt is written,\u201d the Lord used the exact same phrase that is used in the Holy Bible forty six times. The persistence of the repeated phrase underlines its importance. The Lord\u2019s total acceptance of the authority of the Old Testament is evident in His words found in Matthew 5:17-18,<\/span><\/p>\n Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course<\/i>\u00a0Jesus accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is not in dispute. But what is\u00a0most<\/i>\u00a0disputable is Mr. Bennett\u2019s claim that \u201cit is the written word of God and that alone to which the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles refer as the final authority.\u201d This is simply untrue, and demonstrably so. The rhetoric may sound nice, but it must be backed up by fact, and not refuted by counter-factual evidence. I shall provide that counter-evidence by citing a passage from my second book,\u00a0More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism<\/i>: (pages 54-55; passages: RSV)<\/p>\n a) Matthew 2:23<\/strong>: the reference to \u201c. . . He shall be called a Nazarene \u201d cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down \u201cby the prophets.\u201d Thus, a prophecy, which is considered to be \u201cGod\u2019s Word\u201d was passed down orally, rather than through Scripture.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n b) Matthew 23:2-3<\/strong>: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on\u00a0Moses\u2019 seat<\/i>, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of \u201cteaching succession\u201d from Moses on down is taught. Thus, \u201capostolic succession,\u201d whereby the Catholic Church, in its priests and bishops and popes, claims to be merely the Custodian of an inherited apostolic Tradition, is also prefigured by Jewish oral tradition, as approved (at least partially) by Jesus Himself.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n c) In 1 Corinthians 10:4<\/strong>, St. Paul refers to a rock which \u201cfollowed\u201d the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13). Rabbinic tradition, however, does.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n d) 1 Peter 3:19<\/strong>: St. Peter, in describing Christ\u2019s journey to Sheol\/Hades (\u201che went and preached to the spirits in prison . . . \u201c, draws directly from the Jewish apocalyptic book 1 Enoch (12-16).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n e) Jude 9<\/strong>: about a dispute between Michael the archangel and Satan over Moses\u2019 body, cannot be paralleled in the Old Testament, and appears to be a recounting of an oral Jewish tradition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n f) Jude 14-15<\/strong> directly quotes from 1 Enoch 1:9, even saying that Enoch prophesied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n g) 2 Timothy 3:8<\/strong>: Jannes and Jambres cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n h) James 5:17<\/strong>: the reference to a lack of rain for three years is likewise absent from the relevant Old Testament passage in 1 Kings 17. Jesus attacked corrupt traditions only, not tradition per se, and not all Oral Tradition. The simple fact that there exists such an entity as legitimate Oral Tradition, supports the Catholic \u201cboth\/and\u201d view by analogy, whereas in a\u00a0strict sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0viewpoint, this would be inadmissible, it seems to me. It is obvious that there can be false oral traditions just as there are false written traditions which some heretics elevated to \u201cScripture\u201d (e.g., the\u00a0Gospel of Thomas<\/i>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is precisely why we need the Church as Guardian and Custodian of all these traditions, and to determine (by the guidance of the Holy Spirit) which are Apostolic and which not, just as the Church placed its authoritative approval on the New Testament Canon. Holy Scripture is absolutely central and primary in the Catholic viewpoint, just as in Protestantism. No legitimate Oral Tradition can ever contradict Scripture, just as no true fact of science can ever contradict it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n III. OTHER SOURCES OF AUTHORITY CONDEMNED\u00a0<\/span>(??)<\/span><\/strong> Luke 1:1-2<\/strong> Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses . . .<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 11:2<\/strong> I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:15<\/strong> . . . stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth, or by letter.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 3:6<\/strong> . . . keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Apostle Paul explicitly grants oral proclamation or teaching the same authority as written:<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 1:13-14<\/strong> Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:2<\/strong> And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1 Corinthians 11:2<\/strong> . . . maintain the traditions . . . . even as I have delivered them to you.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 2:15<\/strong> . . . hold to the traditions . . . . taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.<\/p>\n 2 Thessalonians 3:6<\/strong> . . . the tradition that you received from us.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:1<\/strong> . . . the gospel, which you received . . .<\/p>\n Galatians 1:9<\/strong> . . . the gospel . . . which you received.<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:9<\/strong> . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.<\/p>\n Acts 8:14<\/strong> . . . Samaria had received the word of God . . .<\/p>\n 1 Thessalonians 2:13<\/strong> . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .<\/p>\n 2 Peter 2:21<\/strong> . . . the holy commandment delivered to them.<\/p>\n Jude 3<\/strong> . . . the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. [cf. Acts 2:42]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In St. Paul\u2019s two letters to the Thessalonians alone we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably. Clearly then,\u00a0tradition\u00a0<\/i>is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularly for St. Paul. If, on the other hand, one wants to maintain that it is, then\u00a0gospel\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0word of God<\/i>\u00a0are also bad words! Thus, the commonly-asserted dichotomy between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and tradition is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically-minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt\u00a0tradition of men<\/i>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Word of the Lord says as a commandment in Proverbs 30:5,6 \u201cEvery word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.\u201d God commands that we are not to add to His Word: this command shows emphatically that it is God\u2019s Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.<\/span> Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord\u2019s strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: \u201cTo the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.\u201d The truth is this: since God\u2019s written word alone is inspired, it \u2013 and it alone \u2013 is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.<\/span> Mr. Bennett keeps appealing to the Old Testament to \u201cprove\u201d his nonexistent case, as if (his hidden, unspoken assumption) the Jews of that period accepted\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>as he does. But they did not. And this fact is clearly attested by reputable Protestant scholarly sources, such as\u00a0The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/i>\u00a0(edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987 \u2013 from\u00a0Bijbelse Encyclopedie<\/i>, ed. W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands, 1975 -, 1014-1015). In its article on \u201cTradition,\u201d we read:<\/p>\n Because oral communication was more significant in biblical than in modern societies, oral tradition in the form of standardized forms of stories, sayings, and the like was part of the process toward the composition of every type of biblical literature . . . Jesus did not totally reject the oral tradition. He affirmed the traditional rules on the tithing of herbs (\u201cthese you ought to have done, without neglecting the others\u201d; Matt. 23:23), though he insisted on the relative triviality of the practice. His own interpretation of the Torah in the Sermon on the Mount employs the scribal principle of \u201cbuilding a fence about the Torah\u201d . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Appeals to authoritative Church tradition are found already in the earliest New Testament writings, the letters of Paul . . . 2 Thess. 3:6 . . . 1 Cor. 11:23-26 . . . 15:3-7 . . . 11:2; Phil. 4:9; 2 Thess. 2:15; cf. Rom. 6:17; Gal. 1:9) . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . the New Testament writings were first valued not as inspired Scripture but as deposits of apostolic tradition in fixed written form, to be interpreted authoritatively by the bishops and according to the rule of faith . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Catholic theologians have regarded Scripture and tradition as a single authority (they \u201cflow from the same divine wellspring\u201d), noting with some historical justification that Scripture is itself a part and product of apostolic tradition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In Scripture, moreover, besides the teaching about authoritative apostolic tradition, the Church also had a binding authority. This is seen in the passages about \u201cbinding and loosing,\u201d a rabbinic term:<\/p>\n Matthew 16:19<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n Matthew 18:18<\/strong> . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.<\/p>\n John 20:23<\/strong> If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The same Protestant source above, in its article on \u201cbinding and loosing\u201d (p. 158), explains the meaning of these terms:<\/p>\n In rabbinic usage the terms mean \u201cto forbid\u201d and \u201cto permit\u201d with reference to interpretation of the law, and secondarily, \u201cto condemn\u201d or \u201cplace under the ban\u201d and \u201cto acquit.\u201d Thus, Peter is given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life . . . and to demand obedience from the Church, reflecting the authority of the royal chamberlain or vizier in the Old Testament (cf. Isa. 22:22 . . . ).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We see the binding authority of the Church in Paul\u2019s statement: \u201c. . . the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth\u201d (1 Timothy 3:15). Paul himself binds and looses in the following two passages:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 5:3-5<\/strong> . . . I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (see 5:1-2)<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 2:6-8, 10-11<\/strong> For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him . . . Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive . . . in the presence of Christ, to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul binds in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 and looses in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7,10, acting as a type of papal figure in 2 Corinthians 2:10, much like St. Peter among the Apostles. He forgives, and bids the Corinthian elders to forgive also, even though the offense was not committed against them personally. Clearly, both parties are acting as God\u2019s representatives in the matter of the forgiveness of sins and the remission of sin\u2019s temporal penalties.<\/p>\n We find ecclesiastical authority in Matthew 18:17, where \u201cthe church\u201d is to settle issues of conflict between believers. Above all, we see Church authority in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30), where we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit \u2013 15:28) which was binding on all Christians:<\/p>\n . . . abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. (15:29)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the next chapter, shortly thereafter we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around \u201cthrough the cities.\u201d Note how Scripture describes what they were proclaiming:<\/p>\n . . . they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. This is Church authority, far more like Catholic ecclesiology than\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0Christianity, which cannot be found in the Bible itself, and is an arbitrary tradition of men. Even the apostle Paul was no lone ranger. He did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council. As I wrote in my treatise on the Church (where many additional biblical indications of Church authority can be found):<\/p>\n In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9). He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I would anticipate Mr. Bennett and other Protestants to object that Pharisaical tradition was cited, and that Jesus and the early Christians were totally opposed to this as hypocritical \u201ctraditions of men\u201d \u2013 lock, stock, and barrel. But what must be understood was that the Pharisees were not entirely corrupt as a class. Jesus Himself followed the Pharisaical tradition, as argued by Asher Finkel in his book\u00a0The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth<\/i>\u00a0(Cologne: E.J. Brill, 1964). He adopted the Pharisaical stand on controversial issues (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17), accepted the oral tradition of the academies, observed the proper mealtime procedures (Mark 6:56, Matthew 14:36) and the Sabbath, and priestly regulations (Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:4). This author argues that Jesus\u2019 condemnations were directed towards the Pharisees of the school of Shammai, whereas Jesus was closer to the school of Hillel. The\u00a0Encyclopedia Judaica\u00a0<\/i>(Jerusalem: 1971) backs up this contention, in its entry \u201cJesus\u201d (v. 10, 10):<\/p>\n In general, Jesus\u2019 polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks and not sharper than similar utterances in the talmudic sources.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This source contends that Jesus\u2019 beliefs and way of life were closer to the Pharisees than to the Essenes, though He was similar to them in many respects also (poverty, humility, purity of heart, simplicity, etc.). The Sadducees were the liberals of Jesus\u2019 time, and they believed in\u00a0sola Scriptura.<\/i>\u00a0But Jesus and the early Church did not follow their tradition; rather, they were much closer to the Pharisaical tradition, as I argued in\u00a0More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism<\/i>: (pages 59-60):<\/p>\n Many people do not realize that Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. It was really the only viable option in the Judaism of that era. Since Jesus often excoriated the Pharisees for hypocrisy and excessive legalism, some assume that He was condemning the whole ball of wax. But this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Likewise, the Apostle Paul, when referring to his Pharisaical background doesn\u2019t condemn Pharisaism per se.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Sadducees, on the other hand, were much more \u201cheretical\u201d. They rejected the future resurrection and the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but never Christian Sadducees. The Sadducees\u2019 following was found mainly in the upper classes, and was almost non-existent among the common people.<\/p>\n The Sadducees also rejected all \u2018oral Torah,\u2019 \u2013 the traditional interpretation of the written that was of central importance in rabbinic Judaism. So we can summarize as follows:<\/p>\n a) The Sadducees were obviously the elitist \u201cliberals\u201d and \u201cheterodox\u201d amongst the Jews of their time. Ergo) The above facts constitute one more \u201cnail in the coffin\u201d of the theory that either the Old Testament Jews or the early Church were guided by the principle of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. The only party which believed thusly were the Sadducees, who were heterodox according to traditional Judaism, despised by the common people, and restricted to the privileged classes only.<\/p>\n The Pharisees (despite their corruptions and excesses) were the mainstream, and the early Church adopted their outlook with regard to eschatology, anthropology, and angelology, and the necessity and benefit of binding oral tradition and ongoing ecclesiastical authority for the purpose (especially) of interpreting Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n IV. THE EXPRESSION \u201cSOLA SCRIPTURA\u201d<\/span><\/strong> It can\u2019t be done, as I\u2019ve observed in many dialogues on the subjects with several Protestants who have a measure of expertise on the subject. They make a valiant effort, and offer many alleged proof texts, but the reasoning is filled with erroneous assumptions and false, untrue conclusions flowing therefrom. I believe the inadequacies of this argument are being more than amply demonstrated presently.<\/p>\n The command to believe what is written means to believe only the pure word of God. It separates from all other sources the corpus what a man is to believe. What is at stake before the All Holy God is His incorruptible truth.<\/span> In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cFor I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book\u201d (Revelation 22:18-19)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This refers only to the book of Revelation (as seen in the words \u201cif any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy\u201d \u2013 not all Scripture is prophetic in nature). That\u2019s all it is referring to. It does not in any way prohibit an authoritative extrascriptural or oral teaching.<\/p>\n His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself. (Psalm 119:160)<\/span> The sum of thy word is truth; and every one of thy righteous ordinances endures for ever.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Who would argue against this? But it is no proof whatsoever of the full-blown Protestant invention and previously-unknown novelty of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>.<\/p>\n V. THE PRESCRIPT AND INTERPRETATION<\/span><\/strong> The Jerusalem Council authoritatively interpreted Scripture, and not by simply comparing Scripture with Scripture. \u201cBinding and loosing\u201d is also exercised by the apostles (and priests and bishops later on). Nor did the Old Testament Jews interpret in this way (Mr. Bennett has again given us Old Testament Scripture in supposed support of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0\u2013 Psalm 36:9). From my second bookonce again (pp. 56-57):<\/p>\n The Jews did not have a \u201cme, the Bible, and the Holy Ghost\u201d mindset. Protestants have, of course, teachers, commentators, and interpreters of the Bible (and excellent ones at that \u2013 often surpassing Catholics in many respects). They are, however, strictly optional and non-binding when it comes down to the individual and his choice of what he chooses to believe. This is the Protestant notion of\u00a0private judgment\u00a0<\/i>and the nearly-absolute primacy of individual conscience (Luther\u2019s \u201cplowboy\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In Catholicism, on the other hand, there is a parameter where doctrinal speculation must end: the Magisterium, dogmas, papal and conciliar pronouncements, catechisms \u2013 in a word (well, two words): Catholic Tradition. Some things are considered to be settled issues. Others are still undergoing development.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n All binding dogmas are believed to be derived from Jesus and the Apostles. Now, who did the Jews resemble more closely in this regard? Did they need authoritative interpretation of their Torah, and eventually, the Old Testament as a whole? The Old Testament itself has much to \u201ctell\u201d us (RSV):<\/p>\n a) Exodus 18:20: Moses was to\u00a0teach<\/i>\u00a0the Jews the\u00a0statutes and the decisions<\/i>\u00a0\u2013 not just\u00a0read<\/i>\u00a0it to them. Since he was the Lawgiver and author of the Torah, it stands to reason that his interpretation and teaching would be of a highly authoritative nature. So the people did indeed understand the law (8:12), but not without much assistance \u2013 not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself, but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc.<\/p>\n h) I think all Christians agree that prophets, too, exercised a high degree of authority, so I need not establish that.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Catholic Church continues to offer authoritative teaching and a way to decide doctrinal and ecclesiastical disputes, and believes that its popes and priests have the power to \u201cbind and loose,\u201d just as the New Testament describes. Protestantism has no such system. Those truly desiring to be true to Lord in this very matter of the standard of \u201csola Scriptura\u201d must turn to the Lord to obey His command, \u201cTurn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you\u201d (Proverbs 1:23). If one is yearning of truth in this essential matter, in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 \u201cwith a broken and a contrite heart\u201d, the Lord God will not despise, but reveal to him or her the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles. In the words of the Apostle John, \u201cThis is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.\u201d (John 21:24). The Apostle John wrote, as did Peter and Paul, in order that those who are saved should know that his testimony is true.<\/span> Protestants think\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is \u201cobvious\u201d and \u201cunquestionable\u201d in the way that a fish in an aquarium (with \u2013 theoretically \u2013 no people ever to observe it) thinks it is \u201cobvious\u201d that the entire world consists of water and that all creatures live in it. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote eloquently about this strong tendency:<\/p>\n That Scripture is the Rule of Faith is in fact an assumption so congenial to the state of mind and course of thought usual among Protestants, that it seems to them rather a truism than a truth. If they are in controversy with Catholics on any point of faith, they at once ask,\u00a0Where do you find it in Scripture?<\/i>\u00a0and if Catholics reply, as they must do, that it is not necessarily in Scripture in order to be true, nothing can persuade them that such an answer is not an evasion, and a triumph to themselves. Yet it is by no means self-evident that all religious truth is to be found in a number of works, however sacred, which were written at different times, and did not always form one book; and in fact it is a doctrine very hard to prove . . . It [is] . . . an assumption so deeply sunk into the popular mind, that it is a work of great difficulty to obtain from its maintainers an acknowledgment that it is an assumption. I am here to try to persuade Protestants that there is a respectable, plausible, cogent, coherent and consistent, biblical way of thinking which is contrary to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>: that the latter \u201cworldview\u201d or schema of authority is not \u201call there is\u201d or the only way to faithfully read and interpret Holy Scripture, and that Scripture itself teaches this, rather than\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>.<\/p>\n If\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>is all one knows or hears about, then of course one will come away with that viewpoint. \u201cWe are what we eat.\u201d But if the biblical, patristic, and pre-16th century ways of viewing authority are presented, it can readily be seen that the case for them is far superior. I believe that is evident above. Mainly I have presented scripture and scholarly commentary on it and on the ancient Jews and the early Christians. The case presents itself and is very strong. It doesn\u2019t depend on my own skills or cleverness. I proposed a contextual, analogical, and exegetical argument against this standard Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, in my first book (pp. 9-11):<\/p>\n In 2 Timothy alone (context), St. Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). In the latter instance, St. Paul says of the tradition,\u00a0
\n
\n<\/span>The Biblical message breathed out by God is revelation in written form. (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Biblical claim is that what God has inspired was His written word (2 Peter 1:20-21). When the Lord Jesus Christ said, \u201cthe Scripture cannot be broken\u201d (John 10:35), He was speaking of God\u2019s written word. The events, actions, commandments, and truths from God are given to us in propositional, i.e. logical, written sentences.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Catholics do not disagree with this, as we, too, accept the inspiration and infallible authority of Scripture. We simply don\u2019t pit it against Church and Tradition, which Holy Scripture considers as possessing authority also.<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>This is a clever mixture of truth and falsehood. Nowhere does scripture proclaim that \u201cit alone, is this final authority in all matters of faith and morals,\u201d if by that, Bennett means (as I am assuming) the formal system and rule of faith of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. I submit that this would explain why no Scripture is offered here to illustrate this supposed biblical claim. If he offers such alleged \u201cproof\u201d below, it will be shown to be altogether insufficient to establish this claim of Bennett\u2019s, and of Protestants generally-speaking. We agree that there is one written and inspired, \u201cGod-breathed\u201d revelation. As for \u201cone\u00a0basis<\/i>\u00a0of truth\u201d (as opposed to \u201cone truth\u201d) this truth is not limited to the Bible, but also includes prophetic and apostolic proclamation and oral tradition, as well as teaching not included in the Bible itself, as seen in the following biblical passages (RSV):<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>
\nThe Lord Jesus Christ, in His great high priestly prayer, declared clearly the truth of God\u2019s Word. He said, \u201cSanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.\u201d This was consistent with the declarations right through the Old Testament in which the Holy Spirit continually proclaims that the revelation from God is truth, as for example Psalm 119:142, \u201cthy law is truth.\u201d The Lord Himself therefore identified truth with the written Word. There is no source other than to Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer\u2019s standard of truth.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>This is lousy logic. To say that something is true does not mean that it (even if inspired) is the\u00a0sole<\/i>\u00a0source of truth. The Psalmist could also have cried, \u201c2 + 2 = 4 is truth,\u201d or, \u201cThat David, the one who killed Goliath, was King of Israel is truth.\u201d To establish this grandiose claim, the Bible would have to state something like, \u201conly<\/i>\u00a0the\u00a0written\u00a0<\/i>word contained in the Bible is true, and\u00a0nothing else<\/i>\u00a0is true or\u00a0authoritative<\/i>.\u201d No such passage can be found, and much can be found which would contradict this bogus claim, based on an illogical application of a few Scripture passages. So, Bennett unwittingly commits this fallacy (very common in Protestant circles) and then follows up with a second: the notion that only the written word is authoritative, or a \u201cstandard of truth.\u201d Scripture certainly is a \u201cstandard of truth\u201d (we agree fully), even the preeminent one, but\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>in a sense that rules out the Church and Tradition.<\/p>\n
\n7\u00a0\u201cBut you did not listen to me,\u201d declares the LORD ,<\/b>\u00a0\u201cand you have provoked me with what your hands have made, and you have brought harm to yourselves.\u201d 8 Therefore\u00a0the LORD Almighty says this: \u201cBecause you have not listened to my words,\u00a0<\/b>9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,\u201d declares the LORD , \u201cand I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy [1] them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nSince Jesus and the Apostles acknowledge authoritative Jewish oral tradition (even in so doing raising some of it literally to the level of written Revelation), we are hardly at liberty to assert that it is altogether illegitimate. That being the case, the alleged analogy of the Old Testament to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is again found wanting and massively incoherent.<\/p>\n
\nFurthermore, in refuting the errors of the Sadducees, the Scripture records the Lord saying, \u201cYe do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God\u201d (Matthew 22:29). Christ Jesus continually castigated and rebuked the Pharisees because they made their tradition on a par with the Word of God. He condemned them because they were attempting to corrupt the very basis of truth by equating their traditions to the Word of God. So He declared to them in Mark 7:13 \u201c[You are] making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such things do ye.\u201d Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>The Bible does not teach that\u00a0all\u00a0<\/i>\u201ctradition\u201d is bad or evil or merely the \u201ctraditions of men.\u201d Rather, it teaches that there are indeed such bad and untrue traditions (see, e.g., Matt 15:2-6, Mk 7:8-13, Col 2:8), but that there are also true, apostolic traditions which are positively endorsed. These apostolic traditions are \u2013 far from being contrary to Scripture \u2013 in total harmony with the Bible. Catholics believe that the true traditions must always be consistent with Scripture. In that sense, Scripture is its \u201cfinal Judge,\u201d but not in the sense that Scripture somehow rules out or makes impossible all Tradition and Church authority. It does not at all. In fact, it asserts those things. Here are instances where the Bible espouses true tradition (RSV):<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>All this is saying is that one must not contradict or corrupt God\u2019s word, which (as shown) can be both oral and written. Of course, the inspired revelation is pure and uncontaminated, but this doesn\u2019t logically (or biblically) rule out other sources of truth; otherwise Jesus and the apostles would not have cited other sources in order to back up various claims (as also demonstrated above, from Scripture).<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>It certainly\u00a0can<\/i>\u00a0be \u201cotherwise\u201d since it is in\u00a0fact<\/i>, according to the Bible itself (thus showing\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0to be a self-defeating concept, since it cannot even be established from Scripture Alone \u2013 the very concept under consideration). This thinking is shot-through with internal contradiction. One falsehood is accepted, and then the system is built upon it, by adding other falsehoods. But a structure with a weak foundation cannot stand.<\/p>\n
\nWhile the Sadducees viewed the written text of the Torah as alone authoritative, the Pharisees cultivated an elaborate interpretive tradition . . . The resultant \u201ctradition of the elders\u201d (or \u201coral Torah\u201d) was considered equal in authority to the written text elaborated by it. It represented simply the unfolding of what was implied in the written commandments, and was said to have been received by Moses from God on Mt. Sinai along with the written commandments and passed down orally from that time . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n(Acts 16:4)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nb) But the Sadducees were also the\u00a0sola Scripturists<\/i>\u00a0of their time.
\nc) Christianity adopted wholesale the very \u201cpostbiblical\u201d doctrines which the Sadducees rejected and which the Pharisees accepted: resurrection, belief in angels and spirits, the soul, the afterlife, eternal reward or damnation, and the belief in angels and demons.
\nd) But these doctrines were notable for their marked development after the biblical Old Testament Canon was complete, especially in Jewish apocalyptic literature, part of Jewish codified oral tradition.
\ne) We\u2019ve seen how \u2013 if a choice is to be made \u2013 both Jesus and Paul were squarely in the \u201cPharisaical camp,\u201d over against the Sadducees.
\nf) We also saw earlier how Jesus and the New Testament writers cite approvingly many tenets of Jewish oral (later talmudic and rabbinic) tradition, according to the Pharisaic outlook.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n<\/span>
\nFrom the time of the giving of the Decalogue on Mt. Sinai, when Holy God wrote with His finger on the tablets of stone (Exodus 31:18), until this present day, the written word of God has been extant in the world. The term \u201csola Scriptura\u201d or \u201cthe Bible alone\u201d as the measure of truth is short hand, as it were, for the emphatic and repeated statements of Scripture and of the commandment of God. The very phrase \u201d It is written\u201d means exclusively transcribed, and not hearsay.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>No one is denying that \u201cwritten\u201d means \u201cwritten\u201d (which would be silly), but \u201cword of God\u201d is not always the equivalent of \u201cwritten\u201d in Scripture, as shown, and not all oral Tradition can be conveniently (and quite unjustly and groundlessly) collapsed into the pejorative term, \u201chearsay.\u201d Mr. Bennett has a problem with the Bible and Jesus Himself and the Apostle Paul (not just the Catholic Church), because all accepted the authority of Tradition and the Church alongside Scripture: they are all of a piece: one harmonious whole, or a \u201cthree-legged stool,\u201d as Catholics like to describe them.
\nMr. Bennett has yet to show that the Bible teaches Bible Alone as a formal principle or Rule of Faith.<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>To believe what is written and inspired does not preclude also believing in authoritative pronouncements of apostles and of the Church which preserves (by the assistance of the Holy Spirit) the apostolic deposit passed on from the apostles (who in turn received it from our Lord Jesus).<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>The text does not make this more grandiose claim, that Mr. Bennett tries to interpret in terms of the conception of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0(\u201csufficient\u201d \u2013 i.e., somehow ruling out other authorities, which doesn\u2019t follow from being sufficient, anyway). The text simply says (RSV):<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>The principle of \u201csola Scriptura\u201d is consistent with the very way in which the word of truth that comes from God, is to be interpreted, as Psalm 36:9 explains, \u201cFor with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light we see light\u201d. God\u2019s truth is seen in the light of God\u2019s truth. This is exactly the same as the Apostle Paul says, \u201cWhich things also we speak, not in the words which man\u2019s wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual\u201d (I Corinthians 2:13). It is precisely in the light which God\u2019s truth sheds, that His truth is seen. (Cp. John 3:18-21, II Corinthians 4:3-7.)<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>The Apostle Peter, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, declares, \u201cknowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost\u201d (2 Peter 1:20-21). Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God\u2019s written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself. Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit\u2019s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord\u2019s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth \u201cit is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth\u201d (I John 5:6).<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Catholics agree that comparing Scripture with Scripture is an excellent way to do exegesis and systematic theology. It doesn\u2019t follow, however, that we are left with this method\u00a0alone<\/i>\u00a0in seeking to understand Scripture. This isn\u2019t necessary; it is not explicitly taught in Scripture (nor are other methods condemned), and there are many contra-indications, as I will demonstrate shortly. Furthermore, this belief in a clear or \u201cperspicuous\u201d Scripture (to the extent that an individual needs no necessary outside help) has not in fact, produced the marvelous unity and agreement on doctrine which was always the\u00a0dream\u00a0<\/i>of the early Protestants, but which has never managed to become a concrete\u00a0reality<\/i>.<\/p>\n
\nb) Leviticus 10:11: Aaron, Moses\u2019 brother, is also commanded by God to teach.
\nc) Deuteronomy 17:8-13: The Levitical priests had binding authority in legal matters (derived from the Torah itself). They interpreted the biblical injunctions (17:11). The penalty for disobedience was death (17:12), since the offender didn\u2019t obey\u00a0the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God<\/i>. Cf. Deuteronomy 19:16-17, 2 Chronicles 19:8-10.
\nd) Deuteronomy 24:8: Levitical priests had the final say and authority (in this instance, in the case of leprosy). This was a matter of Jewish law.
\ne) Deuteronomy 33:10: Levite priests are to teach Israel the\u00a0ordinances<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0law<\/i>. (cf. 2 Chronicles 15:3, Malachi 2:6-8 \u2013 the latter calls them\u00a0messenger of the LORD of hosts<\/i>).
\nf) Ezra 7:6,10: Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (7:25-26).
\ng) Nehemiah 8:1-8: Ezra reads the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (8:3). In 8:7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra, and\u00a0who helped the people to understand the law<\/i>. Much earlier, in King Jehoshaphat\u2019s reign, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chronicles 17:8-9). There is no\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, with its associated idea \u201cperspicuity\u201d (evident clearness in the main) here. In Nehemiah 8:8: . . .\u00a0they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly<\/i>\u00a0[footnote, \u201cor with interpretation\u201d],\u00a0and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading<\/i>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nThe Old Testament and Jewish history attest to a fact which Catholics constantly assert, over against\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0and Protestantism: that Holy Scripture requires an authoritative interpreter, a Church, and a binding Tradition, as passed down from Jesus and the Apostles.<\/p>\n
\nThis is all well and good, and we believe it, but it doesn\u2019t\u00a0prove<\/i>\u00a0a single thing that Mr. Bennett is trying to prove, and doesn\u2019t\u00a0disprove<\/i>\u00a0in the least the host of counter-factual biblical evidences that I have brought to bear, or the different view of authority that flows logically from them. Protestant defenses of\u00a0sola Scriptura\u00a0<\/i>are almost always of this simplistic, \u201ctake-it-for-granted\u201d nature, They simply assume what they are trying to prove from the outset and struggle mightily to make Scripture itself fit into their preconceived notions. That\u2019s what is called in logic, \u201ccircular argument\u201d or \u201cbegging the question.\u201d But it is a losing battle. What Protestant defenders of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0think is so \u201cobvious\u201d and \u201cclear\u201d is not at all that, when objectively examined.<\/p>\n
\n(An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent<\/i>, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1955; originally 1870, 296)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n<\/span>VI. THE ADEQUACY OF SCRIPTURE<\/span><\/strong>
\n
\n<\/span>The total sufficiency of Scripture is declared by the Apostle Paul, \u201cAll scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.\u201d (2 Timothy 3:16-17). For final truth and authority, all that we need is the Scripture.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>But the passage doesn\u2019t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes an authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants merely extrapolate onto the text what simply isn\u2019t there. Catholics accept the material sufficiency of Scripture. All true Christian doctrines can be found in Scripture, explicitly or implicitly, or clearly deduced from biblical evidences.<\/p>\n