To Catholics, since Vatican II, Protestants are no longer anathema (which is a pretty bad thing to be), but are “separated brethren” (which is not so bad).

Attitudes are changing. One could could argue that attitudes are changing for the better. But have the issues changed? As we are on the eve of Reformation Day, let us remind ourselves what was at stake nearly 500 years ago, on October 31, 1517, when a young Augustinian monk named Martin Luther nailed a bold list of ninety-five complaints against the institutionalized church of the day that started what we know as the Great Reformation.

Here is the scoop: Five hundred years ago we had a “situation” in the church. We now call it the “Great Reformation,” but who knew at the time it would be a reformation of any kind, much less a “great” one? Catholics see it as yet another rebellious schism. The first major division in the Christian church happened in 1054, when the Eastern church got fed up with the Pope and thumbed its nose at him (or something like that). The Great Reformation was the second. For Protestants, this was not only a reforming of the church, but a reclaiming of the Gospel which had been obscured and overshadowed by the institutionalized church of the day.

While there were and are a lot of issues that divide Roman Catholics and Protestants, there are two which overshadow the rest and define the essence of the Great Refomation: authority and justification. The issue of authority has been called the “formal” cause of the Reformation while the issue of justification was the “material” cause. In this brief post I would like to focus on these two issues.

1. Authority: Where do we go for truth?

To the institutionalized church of the day (now known as the Roman Catholic Church), both Scripture and Tradition (notice the capital “T”) represented the one “deposit of faith” that was handed down from the Apostles (i.e. written and unwritten tradition). The church, as represented by the Pope and the congregation of bishops, could interpret both infallibly, being protected by the Holy Spirit. Think of a three-legged stool. All three (Scripture, Tradition, and the Church) serve as “legs” supporting the “stool” – the church’s ultimate authority.

To Protestants, this represented an abuse of authority. While the institutionalized church had authority, it did not have ultimate authority. While tradition (notice the lower case “t”) was very important and to be respected, it did not share equal authority with Scripture, but served Scripture. Everything, including unwritten tradition, the councils, and the Pope, had to be tested by and submit to Scripture. Protestants repositioned both the church and tradition underneath the Scripture.

The battle cry of the Reformers here was sola Scriptura: the Scriptures alone were our final and only infallible source from God.

2. Justification: How is a person made right with God?

Here the issue was not necessarily the nature of justification, but the instrumental cause (from a human standpoint) of justification. The institutionalized church believed that justification was a process brought about in the individual’s cooperation with God through their faith and works. People were not justified, but were being justified, and they could never really know of their own eternal security. For most, the best that they could hope for was that they died and spent a certain amount of time (usually very extended) in a place called “Purgatory” having their venial (not so bad) sins purged through a painful cleansing process. Then, once released from Purgatory, they would move on to heaven. As modern Roman Catholics would put it, “Purgatory is the time to wash before dinner.”

The Protestants believed this was a serious distortion of the Gospel message, likened to the Galatian error. This distortion, argued the Protestants, arose in the late middle ages with the growth of the Sacramental system (you know, the necessity of Mass, confession, baptism, etc.). Protestants believed that justification was through the faith of the individual alone and that works did not contribute in any way. Otherwise, grace is not really grace. Justification, to the Reformers, was an event, not a process. It was a “forensic” or a legal act in which the believing sinner was declared righteous, having Christ’s righteousness imputed to their account. There was nothing that man could do to add to or take away from their justification. Any attempts to work for one’s justification (including time spent in Purgatory) was a diminishing of the value of the cross – in essence, saying Christ’s  work was not enough. As well, Protestants, unlike Catholics, believed that we could have assurance of our ultimate salvation.

The battle cry of the Reformation was sola fide: justification is by faith alone, not by any works man can do.

There were other issues that caused great strife during the Reformation, but they all paled in comparison to these two. While the tension and the heat that immediately accompany a fight have cooled, recent events have not changed these two issues. Most Protestants and Catholics still believe that these are hills upon which we should die, even if neither side conclusively believes the other is going to hell.

We must keep in mind, however, how much the two sides do agree. When it comes to the person and work of Christ, conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics (along with Eastern Orthodox) all believe that Jesus Christ is the God-man (fully God and fully man) who died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave as an atonement for sin. All believe that salvation is purely by the grace of God and that the faith of the individual is necessary. And, significantly, all believe that Christ is the only way to God.

Was the Reformation necessary? I believe so. The communication and purity of the Gospel was at stake. Amidst all the conciliations going on today, we need to keep this in mind: things have not changed that much. We can love each other and appreciate the common heritage we share. We can even learn much from one another. But there is still a serious divide and Protestants should dare not compromise the Gospel by sweeping the Reformation under the rug. The Gospel is too important.Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part One – Authority Across the Spectrum
• In Defense of Sola Scripture, Part 9: A Biblical Defense
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part 10 – A Historical Defense
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Five – What is Tradition?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Four – What Did John Believe?

Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Scripture is the only source of spiritual insight.

Spiritual insight can come from any number of sources, both secular and Christian. I remember in 1995, I received quite a bit of spiritual motivation and inspiration from the movie Braveheart. The idea of a person giving up his life for something bigger than himself possessed my thoughts and hopes. There are many things – songs, wise words, books, and movies (Christian and secular), among other things – that can be sources of insight and inspiration. Remember, all truth is God’s truth. It does not have to be in the Scriptures to be true.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that there are not other authorities in our lives.

We believe that the Scriptures are our final and only infallible authority, but not that they are our only authority. For example, we believe that our pastors and church leaders have authority in our lives. Hebrews 13:7 says that we are to obey our leaders. Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:2). People are to obey the government (1 Pet. 2:13). Children are to do what their parents say (Eph. 6:1). There can be no excuse like, “Dad, the Bible does not say I have to clean my room, so I choose not to.” Or “Officer, it says nothing specific about running red lights in the Bible.”

As well, tradition (church history) is an authority in our lives. Those who have gone before us in the faith must be respected. Their collective and unified influence creates an authority which, I believe, is second only to Scripture. After all, they had the same Holy Spirit as us, didn’t they? The Holy Spirit does not teach us everything new as individuals, but educates and inspires us in and with those who have gone before us. That is why I love dead theologians!

As I read through the Institutes of John Calvin this summer, I did so with a fine-toothed comb, underlining every time another source was referenced, especially a source from another church father. One cannot study the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura and come away with the idea that the Reformers ever meant that the Scriptures were our only authority. Ultimate, yes. Only, no.

None of these are our final authority, and if the Scriptures contradict what these authorities say, the Scriptures trump.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that if it is not in the Bible it is not divinely binding.

Romans 1 speaks of the binding authority of the message of creation: “For since the creation of the world, his eternal attributes, divine power and nature have been clearly understood so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). As well, in Romans 2, we are told that our conscience testifies to us about God’s will (Rom. 2:14-16). As Christians, we must be willing to take our cue from all forms of what we call “general revelation:” rationality, moral conscience, and the message of creation all qualify.

Whether it is rationality or the message of creation and the conclusions drawn from it, we cannot turn a blind eye and say that since it is not in the Scripture, it does not make any difference.

Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Scriptures are an exhaustive source for us to know how to live our lives each day.

Think about how many things the Bible does not tell us. It does not tell us any particulars about where to work, whom to marry, what to eat, how often to shower, how many elders to have, or how, exactly, to conduct a Sunday morning service. It gives us general principles and then extends lots of freedom for the wisdom in each of us to work out the details.

The Scriptures equip us spiritually for every spiritual service (2 Tim. 3:17). There is no knowledge deposit or missing database which contains essential information about how to have a right relationship with God. In this, Scripture is completely sufficient for every spiritual task.

In the end, the doctrine of sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final and only infallible source of divine revelation and is, therefore, the ultimate guide for the conscience of the Christian.

I think this is an accurate way to put it:

The Bible is carried by reason, aided by experience, guarded by tradition, but ruled by none.Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Two – Martin Luther
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part One – Authority Across the Spectrum
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Three – An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory

Introduction
I would like to begin by thanking Rob Bowman and Michael Patton for giving me the opportunity to present and defend my faith. Before I commence my argument, I’ll take a little time to introduce myself, my beliefs and my approach to Scripture.

I am a Christian. I belong to the Christadelphians (“Brethren in Christ”), a small Biblical Unitarian denomination which is spread across more than 60 different countries around the world (you can learn more about us here: www.thechristadelphians.org). Christadelphians are the largest Biblical Unitarian denomination and emerged out of the Restitutionist movement over 160 years ago. Biblical Unitarians are distinct from Rationalist Unitarians (who do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God) and Universalist Unitarians (who believe that all people will be saved, regardless of what they believe). The Christadelphian community has no hierarchy and no paid clergy.

I am 37 years old, married to a beautiful wife (Liz), with a gorgeous 13 month old daughter (Johanna). I was born and raised in a Christadelphian family, and attended Sunday School and Youth Group as a child. At the age of 19 I was baptised into Christ, and at 22 I became a lay pastor (a position I have now held for 15 years). I have a considerable amount of public speaking experience throughout Australia and the UK, having ministered at Christadelphian ecclesias (“churches”) in both countries. I am a founder and administrator of the Bible Truth Discussion Forum (www.thechristadelphians.org/forums) where I post under the pseudonym of “Evangelion.”

In summary, I believe:

• The Bible is the inspired Word of God and the sole authoritative source of Christian doctrine and practice
• The Father alone is God
• Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but not God himself
• The Holy Spirit is the power of God, but not God himself
• Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised to immortality by the Father
• At an appointed time (concealed from humanity) Jesus will return to Earth, judge the living and the dead, restore the nation of Israel to her former glory and reign over a kingdom that will last for 1,000 years

A comprehensive statement of my beliefs complete with supporting Scriptural references can be found at my forum (here: http://tinyurl.com/6fbfhc).

Throughout this debate I will be using the NET Bible (available online here: net.bible.org/bible.php) which is an evangelical translation. Despite its obvious doctrinal bias in some places, I recommend the NET as an accessible and demonstrably superior translation with excellent footnotes and a high degree of exegetical transparency. It is the Bible that I use for personal study and public speaking.

Since I believe that the Father alone is God, I will be using the words “God” and “Father” interchangeably. Any reference to “God” (capitalised) or “Yahweh” should therefore be taken as a reference to the Father, and any reference to the Father should be taken as a reference to God unless otherwise stated.

Exegetical Method

My approach to Scripture seeks to uphold the primacy of God’s Word above historical traditions and theoretical speculations. I believe that the essential message of the Bible can be understood by ordinary people without any academic training or professional expertise. When attempting to interpret a passage of Scripture, I apply the following rules:

Context is paramount
Scriptural statements do not exist in a vacuum. The context of a passage should always be our first consideration. A proper understanding of context is vital because context determines meaning; thus, the use of a word in one passage may be very different to the use of that same word in another passage.

For example, the word “baptism” is used in at least three different ways throughout the New Testament:

• Literal baptism with water (Matthew 3:13, Acts 8:37-39)
• Receipt of the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8, Acts 1:5)
• Suffering through trial (Mark 10:38, Luke 12:50)

In each case the intended meaning of “baptism” is determined by the context and application of the word.

Scripture the interpreter of Scripture
This is the literal English translation of a Latin expression used by the Reformers: “Scriptura Scripturae interpres.” It goes hand in hand with another Reformation motto, “Sola Scriptura” (meaning “by Scripture alone”) which means that Christian doctrine must be derived purely from Scripture and no other source.

In the New Testament we find some explicit examples of Scripture interpreting Scripture:

• Matthew 2:13-15 quotes Hosea 11:1 and tells us that this prophetic saying was fulfilled by Mary and Joseph’s escape to Egypt
• Matthew 2:17-18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 and tells us that this prophetic saying was fulfilled by Herod’s slaughter of the children during his search for the Messiah
• Acts 15:16-17 paraphrases Amos 9:11-12 and tells us that this prophetic saying was fulfilled by the Christian message, which called Gentiles into the covenant relationship originally established between God and Israel

We can apply this principle by cross-referencing Bible passages to obtain additional information or draw out their intended meaning. For example, we gain a greater understanding of events in the books of the Kings by comparing parallel records in the books of the Chronicles. Similarly, we will find that statements by the apostle Paul which may appear obscure in one place, are sometimes more clearly explained in another place.

Scripture cannot contradict Scripture
This principle echoes Jesus’ words in John 10:35 (“…Scripture cannot be broken”). Apparent contradictions are often due to errors in textual transmission, translation, or misunderstanding. It is essential to determine where the problem lies before attempting a solution.

Arguments from silence are inadmissible
An argument from silence (“argumentum ex silentio”) is a logical fallacy defined as a conclusion based upon a lack of evidence. For example:

• The apostle Paul does not refer to the virgin birth in his epistles
• Therefore, Paul was ignorant of the teaching that Jesus’ mother was a virgin when she conceived him

This argument is flawed because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. There are any number of reasons why Paul does not mention the virgin birth, one of which could be that he is writing to Christians, who are already familiar with the life story of Jesus and do not need to hear it again. The absence of any reference to the virgin birth does not prove that Paul was unaware of it.

Another example shows why we must take care when applying this principle:

• Jesus never claimed to be God
• Therefore, Jesus is not God

The mistake here is less obvious because the argument appears more reasonable at face value. The fact that Jesus never claimed to be God is significant because it is precisely what we would expect him to do if he was actually God. So the initial statement has some rhetorical force.

However, we know that Jesus sometimes concealed his identity (Matthew 16:20 “Then he instructed his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ”) so it could be argued (albeit unconvincingly) that he concealed his deity in a similar way. Thus it is not enough to conclude that Jesus is not God simply because he never claimed to be. Additionally, some Trinitarians will claim that Jesus did claim to be God, so this argument can be attacked on other grounds.

Arguments should be predicated upon a variety of evidence; doctrine cannot be based upon a single verse
The point being made here is that our conclusions must be consistent with the wider body of Scripture. God’s word is a tapestry of many threads and they are often interlocked. If we focus too much on one part we lose sight of the whole.

For example, it is not enough to say “Jesus was worshipped in Matthew 2:11; therefore he is God.” We need to examine alternative lines of evidence. What is the Greek word for “worship” in this verse? Why is it translated “bowed” in some translations? Does it occur elsewhere? Applied to whom? In what context? An interpretation which appears “obvious” at first glance may prove to be flawed when we investigate more closely.

We must take Scripture literally unless we have a reason to take it figuratively; apparent “contradictions” in Scripture can often be seemingly resolved in this way
Figurative interpretations are valuable but they cannot be arbitrary; we may not resort to them simply to clear an obstacle. We must show that our interpretation is valid and explain why it must be figurative.

Scriptural consistency is a signpost of true doctrine; likely interpretations uphold this consistency
This principle follows naturally from the previous one. God’s message is consistent. If we find several dozen verses saying one thing and one verse which appears to say something different, we have either discovered an apparent contradiction which must be resolved, or an solitary exception to a pre-established principle.

Where alternative interpretations present themselves, we should follow the conclusion which is most consistent with the greater body of evidence
This principle follows naturally from the previous one.

Any proposed definitions of a word must be supported from several examples of identical usage
This principle is self explanatory.

God: Definition and Identity
Before entering any discussion about Who and what God is, it is important for us to keep in mind an essential point: the Christian God is the Jewish God and everything that we know about Him through the Christian message was already known to the Jews through Judaism. Christianity added nothing to the nature or identity of God, but took for granted the definitions and principles already present in Judaism. Biblical Unitarianism stands firmly within the context of Old Testament Judaism and first-century Christianity; our God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, John and Paul.

Equally important is the origin of Christianity. Although generally regarded today as a western religion, Christianity was originally a Jewish sect, with Jesus first preached to the Jews and later to the Gentiles. Since most of the earliest Christians were Jews, we must strive to understand the Christian faith as they did, and not as it was later interpreted by Gentile Christians of later centuries, many of whom lacked an essential understanding of Jewish religious traditions.

The first-century Jewish opponents of Christianity insisted that it constituted a heretical breach from Judaism, but in the pages of the NT we are able to see that Christians proved otherwise, demonstrating powerfully from Scripture that Christianity is the end result of a process which had begun with Israel. Thus, as Christians, we must recognise and acknowledge that there is a doctrinal continuity from Judaism to Christianity which cannot be broken. This continuity is emphasised by the apostle Paul in Galatians 3:24, where he says that the Law of Moses was “…our instructor into Christ.”

But how was the Law of Moses our instructor? In what way could this rigid Old Testament legal system prepare anyone for the message of love and grace that we find in Christianity? This is a point to which I shall return in later discussions.

Trinitarians recognise the vital importance of the Judaeo-Christian continuum, as evidenced by their sensitivity to the theological tension which results from the anachronistic imposition of Trinitarian interpretations upon first-century doctrinal statements. Since it is now widely accepted that the first-century church was not Trinitarian, it has become necessary for Trinitarians to explain (a) why this was and (b) how Trinitarianism successfully emerged from an ideological climate which was wholly unfavourable to it.

Various scholars (not all of them strictly Trinitarian) have approached this problem with considerable ingenuity but limited success. For example, James F. McGrath postulates that Johannine Christological development was a tentative process which blurred the distinction between the pre-existent logos and the pre-existent Jesus without ever committing to a fully defined ontological unity between Father and Son. James D. G. Dunn takes a similar position.

Larry Hurtado (whose work reflects the influence of Alan Segal’s “angelomorphic” or “two powers” model) is bolder, but even he can only offer an “early binitarian” hypothesis which is ultimately unsatisfactory. A closer examination of these issues will be presented in Weeks 2 & 3 of the debate.

Attributes of God: Identity
God is a personal being Who exists as a single divine Person (Yahweh; the Father). This attribute is arguably the most important of all, since it has a direct bearing upon our debate. The identity of God is explicitly defined in Scripture on many occasions, and the unitary nature of His personhood is repeatedly emphasised. For example:

• Deuteronomy 6:4, “Listen, Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”
• Deuteronomy 32:6, “Is this how you repay the LORD, you foolish, unwise people? Is he not your father, your creator? He has made you and established you.”
• Psalm 89:26, “He will call out to me, ‘You are my father, my God, and the protector who delivers me’”
• Isaiah 63:16, “For you are our father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not recognize us. You, LORD, are our father; you have been called our protector from ancient times.”
• John 4:21, 23, “Jesus said to her, ‘Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem… But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers’”
• John 17:3, “Now this is eternal life – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent”
• 1 Corinthians 8:6, “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live”
• Galatians 1:1, “From Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor by human agency, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead)”

Some of these verses present unique challenges for Trinitarian theology, since they demonstrate an unequivocal distinction between Father and Son as two separate persons who exist as individual beings.

As the debate progresses we will see that Trinitarians have found it necessary to construct an increasingly complex system of “solutions” and “work-arounds” by which they attempt to “explain away” the many Bible passages which contain this strictly Unitarian language. By contrast, Biblical Unitarians can take all of these verses at face value without resorting to lengthy “explanations” of statements which do not require any explanation at all.

A case in point is Deuteronomy 6:4 (“Listen, Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”) This statement, known in Hebrew as the Shema, was cited by Jesus as the greatest of all God’s commandments (Mark 12:28-29). It is explicit Unitarian language, as clear and simple as it can possibly get.

Biblical Unitarians can read this verse and accept what it is saying without any qualification whatsoever: Yahweh is one; ie. one person. Our understanding of this “oneness” is identical to that of Old Testament Judaism. But Trinitarians cannot accept the Shema without qualification, since to them Yahweh is not one; Yahweh is three. (I should add that this depends on which Trinitarian you ask; some will say that the Trinity is three but Yahweh is one, though they struggle to articulate what this means in practical terms).

A popular Trinitarian approach to this problem has been to seize upon the Hebrew word for “one” (echad) and claim that it means “a complex unity”, thereby offering a back door for the Trinitarian belief in a multi-personal Godhead. Trinitarian exegete Sam Shamoun employs this argument in an online article entitled The Binitarian Nature of the Holy Bible’s supreme proof text for the unity of God, where he says:

That God is multi-Personal can be seen from the following passage, known as the Shema, the monotheistic creed of Israel:

“Listen, Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one (Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh echad)! You must love the Lord your God with your whole mind, your whole being, and all your strength.” Deuteronomy 6:4-5 NET Bible

Eloheinu is the 1st person plural declension of Elohim and can therefore be translated as “our Gods.” Moreover, the Hebrew word for “one,” echad, functions much like the English word in that it can refer to a solitary oneness or to a complex unity as in the following example:

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh (basar echad).” Genesis 2:24

Two separate and distinct flesh and blood human beings become echad or one flesh through sexual consummation.

[...]

In light of this we propose translating the Shema in the following way since it brings out more clearly the revelation that God is multi-Personal:

“Hear O Israel: Yahweh our Godhead, Yahweh is a complex unity.”

Notice Shamoun’s blatant refusal to accept the simple statement that “Yahweh is one”, correctly recognising the danger that this presents to his Christology. Instead he wants to affirm that Yahweh is more than one, contrary to the clear message of Scripture. Hence his appeal to the meaning and use of echad, which he claims “…can refer to a complex unity.”

But echad does not refer to a “complex unity”; it is simply the Hebrew word for “one.” Occasionally it is used to modify a collective noun (e.g. “one bunch”; “one pair”; “one herd”) but its actual meaning never changes. It still means “one” and only “one.” The plurality is found in the collective noun, not in the word echad.

Rob Bowman appreciates the futility of the “echad” argument and neatly debunks it in an online article entitled Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity. Yet in the very same article he boldly asserts that “…nowhere in Scripture are we ever told that God is one person.” There are two problems with this claim.

The first is that it comprises a classic example of argumentum ex silentio – the argument from silence. Simply saying ” Scripture doesn’t tell us that God is one person” does not prove that He isn’t. Additionally, Rob does not qualify his assertion, so it is meaningless until we know what his parameters are. This prompts me to ask him two questions:

(a) What would you consider valid evidence of a Unitarian God?
(b) If God is one person how would you expect Scripture to say so?

The second problem with Rob’s claim is that it stands against a wealth of Biblical evidence for the unitary personhood of God. Throughout the entire Bible, God is consistently referred to by means of singular pronouns, clearly denoting a single being and therefore a single person. This single divine Person is referred to as “Father” 15 times in the Old Testament and 245 times in the New, where He is also unequivocally identified as “the only true God”, “one God, the Father”, etc.

Ignoring this Biblical pattern, Trinitarian doctrine developed new definitions for the words “being” and “person.” In Trinitarian parlance, a “being” can consist of more than one “person”, while a “person” is not necessarily a “being.” Thus, while “God the Son” (Jesus) is one “person”, he is not an individual “being”; instead he exists as one “person” within a tri-personal “being” known as the “Trinity.” To date, the use and acceptance of these definitions remain unique to Trinitarianism, since they contradict the use of “being” and “person” in regular human communication.

Inconsistent use of language and the need for careful qualifications when employing even a simple term like “God”, are common features of Trinitarian exegesis.

Attributes of God: Omnipotence
God’s nature is defined by a number of divine attributes, most of which are unique to Him. The first of these is omnipotence (meaning “all-powerful”). This attribute is explicitly stated in Revelation 19:6 (“…For the Lord our God, the All-Powerful, reigns!”)

The Greek word translated “All-Powerful” here is pantokrator, which occurs only 10 times in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, 15:3, 16:7,14, 19:6, 15, 21:22). The Hebrew equivalent is shaddai, which occurs 48 times in the Old Testament (e.g Genesis 17:1, 28:3, 49:25; Exodus 6:3; Ruth 1:21; Job 5:17; Isaiah 13:6; Joel 1:15).

These words are only ever applied to God. They are never applied to Jesus or to the Holy Spirit. God alone is uniquely all-powerful. Indeed, the very nature of the term “all-powerful” implies exclusivity.

God’s omnipotence does not preclude our free will, nor is it undermined by the fact that we can choose to disobey Him. While He is undoubtedly capable of forcing obedience, He allows us to make our own choices. God’s will would be irresistible if He chose to impose it upon us, but because He does not, we retain our free will.

In theory, “omnipotent” could mean that God can do absolutely anything – even if it is illogical, irrational, or physically impossible. In reality, the truth is a little more sophisticated.

An old philosophical question asks: “If God is omnipotent, can He create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift?” The question raises a paradox: if God cannot lift the stone, He is not all powerful; yet if He is not all powerful, how did He create it? Here we have an example of the logical traps we can fall into unless we take care to define our terms of reference.

The Bible is very clear that the attributes of God preclude Him from exhibiting certain behaviours or being subject to certain conditions. For example:

• God cannot die, because He is eternal (Psalm 90:2, “Even before the mountains came into existence, or you brought the world into being, you were the eternal God”; see also 1 Timothy 1:17)
• God cannot lie (Titus 1:2, “…in hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the ages began”; see also Hebrews 10:23)
• God cannot invoke a higher authority than Himself (Hebrews 6:13, “Now when God made his promise to Abraham, since he could swear by no one greater, he swore by himself”)
• God cannot sin or be tempted by evil (James 1:13, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one”)

Thus the Christian God can do anything and everything which is consistent with His character and nature. (The converse is equally true: God cannot do anything contrary to His character and nature). Ultimately, this means it is impossible for God to cease being God, or to become simultaneously “God” and “not-God.” God is not self-contradictory.

Attributes of God: Omniscience & Omnipresence
God is omniscient (“all knowing”). Nothing is hidden from Him. He knows everything which has ever happened in the past, everything that is currently happening, and everything that will happen in the future. His knowledge is absolutely perfect and unfalsifiable. This attribute is explicitly stated in a variety of passages. For example:

• Psalm 147:5, “Our Lord is great and has awesome power; there is no limit to his wisdom”
• Ezekiel 11:5, ” Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon me and said to me, “Say: This is what the LORD says: ‘This is what you are thinking, O house of Israel; I know what goes through your minds”
• Hebrews 4:13, “And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account”
• 1 John 3:20, “…that if our conscience condemns us, that God is greater than our conscience and knows all things”

(See also Psalm 139:1-16).

Since God is omniscient, it is impossible for Him to be ignorant of anything. This attribute is unique to God; He alone possesses omniscience, and He alone possesses exclusive knowledge of future events (Matthew 24:36, “But as for that day and hour no one knows it – not even the angels in heaven – except the Father alone”).

In addition to His omniscience, Christians have traditionally viewed God as omnipresent, meaning “everywhere present.” While there are passages in Scripture which provide evidence for this (e.g. Psa 139:7-8, “Where can I go to escape your spirit? Where can I flee to escape your presence? If I were to ascend to heaven, you would be there. If I were to sprawl out in Sheol, there you would be”); it can appear logically redundant in light of God’s other attributes.

For example, if God is omnipotent, He can perform His will in any part of the universe without being “present.” By the same token, if God is omniscient, He knows what is happening everywhere in the universe without actually being there. Thus it appears that omnipresence is a superfluous attribute.

The concept of omnipresence also begs the question: “What does it mean for God to be ‘present’?” Scripture appears to show that God’s presence is occasionally localised (Genesis 4:16, “So Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden”; Leviticus 10:2, “So fire went out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them so that they died before the LORD). But how can this be, if God is always present everywhere?

These questions introduce a line of discussion that will not be continued here, but may arise in future posts. Suffice it to say that I accept omnipresence as a unique attribute of God, possessed by nobody except the Father.

Attributes of God: Self-Existence
God is self-existent, meaning that His existence is not derived from another source. He exists independently of anything and anyone. Consequently, God is eternal; He has no origin, He cannot die, and He will exist forever. This attribute is explicitly stated in many passages. For example:

• Genesis 21:33, “Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer Sheba. There he worshiped the LORD, the eternal God”
• Psalm 90:2, “Even before the mountains came into existence, or you brought the world into being, you were the eternal God”
• 1 Timothy 1:17, “Now to the eternal king, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen.”

Scripture tells us that God’s self-existence is unique; all other beings are dependent upon Him for their existence:

• Job 12:10, “…in whose hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all the human race”
• Job 34:14-15, “If God were to set his heart on it, and gather in his spirit and his breath, all flesh would perish together and human beings would return to dust”
• Acts 17:24-25, 28, ” The God who made the world and everything in it, who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives life and breath and everything to everyone. For in him we live and move about and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring’”

Even the “eternal life” which is promised to faithful believers is not equivalent to the eternality of God, for He has always existed, while those who receive eternal life have a finite origin. The distinction is occasionally blurred because Scripture sometimes uses the term “immortality” interchangeably with “eternal life”, e.g. Romans 2:7, “…eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality”. Nevertheless, God is the only One Who possesses immortality as an inherent attribute (1 Timothy 6:16, “He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see…”)

Attributes of God: Moral Perfection
God is morally perfect: He cannot sin, and He cannot be tempted. This attribute is derived from a variety of Biblical data, both explicit and implicit. For example:

• Psalm 18:30, “The one true God acts in a faithful manner; the LORD’s promise is reliable”
• Matthew 5:48, “So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”
• Titus 1:2, “…in hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the ages began”
• Hebrews 10:23, “And let us hold unwaveringly to the hope that we confess, for the one who made the promise is trustworthy”
• James 1:13, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself tempts no one”

God’s moral perfection (an attribute that He shares with Jesus and the angels) is utterly comprehensible under Unitarian theology, but raises curious dilemmas for Trinitarianism. These will be identified in the examination of Jesus during Weeks 2 & 3.

Attributes of God: Invisibility & Incorporeality
God is invisible (ie. he cannot be seen) and incorporeal (ie. non-physical). These attributes can be directly inferred from His omnipresence (e.g. God is everywhere but we cannot see Him; ergo He must be invisible and incorporeal) but they are also supported by statements throughout Scripture. For example:

• 1 Timothy 1:17, “Now to the eternal king, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever! Amen.”
• John 4:24, “God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (see Luke 24:39, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones…”)

God’s inherent invisibility and incorporeality are features unique to Him.

Attributes of God: Conclusion
We have seen that God’s character and attributes set Him far apart from His creation and demonstrate His total superiority in every possible aspect of existence. This is both awe-inspiring and deeply humbling, particularly when we reflect upon the incredible work that He has wrought on our behalf:

John 3:16, “For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.”Similar Posts:

• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part II: One in Power?
• The Great Trinity Debate, Part 1: Rob Bowman on God and Scripture
• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? C: John 17:21-23
• The Doctrine of the Trinity in a Nutshell
• The Essence of God: Sovereign, Holiness, or Love?

Once again, I wish to express my gratitude to David Burke for his willingness to invest his time and energy in this important debate. In my opening statement, I will explain the assumptions I bring to the subject regarding Scripture and the nature of God. Along the way, I will address certain a priori objections to the doctrine of the Trinity that non-Trinitarians commonly raise.

Before proceeding, I should briefly define the position I will be defending in this debate. The doctrine of the Trinity is that doctrine that affirms that there is one God, the LORD (YHWH, Jehovah), a single divine being who exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This doctrine of the Trinity is a conceptual framework or system for affirming the following six core propositions drawn from the Bible:

1. There is one (true, living) God, identified as the Creator.
2. This one God is the one divine being called YHWH (or Jehovah, the LORD) in the Old Testament.
3. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God, the LORD.
4. The Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is God, the LORD.
5. The Holy Spirit is God, the LORD.
6. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each someone other than the other two.

In this debate, I will be seeking to defend the doctrine of the Trinity by showing that each of these six propositions is taught in the Bible.

Authority of Scripture

As a conservative evangelical Protestant, I firmly hold to the full inspiration of the Bible, specifically the 66 books of the Protestant canon of Scripture. My understanding of biblical inspiration and authority is classically evangelical. The first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, “Of the Holy Scripture” (1646), remains an exemplary statement of the Protestant understanding of Scripture. More recently, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) gives an excellent, representative definition and exposition of the evangelical view of the nature of Scripture. While neither of these statements is itself inspired or inerrant, I refer to them as superb expressions of the evangelical view of Scripture that I heartily endorse. These confessions, along with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1982), also provide excellent statements about the proper approach to the interpretation of Scripture. Due to limitations of space, I will postpone some of my comments about hermeneutics until later parts of the debate as the relevant hermeneutical issues arise. Two excellent textbooks on biblical hermeneutics are Grant Osborne’s The Hermeneutical Spiral (2006) and Interpreting the New Testament Text, edited by Darrell Bock and Buist Fanning (2006).

Evangelicals commonly refer to their view of Scripture using the Reformation slogan sola scriptura. While I rally behind this slogan along with my fellow evangelicals, we need to distinguish between sola scriptura and what some people call Biblicism, or perhaps we could call it hyper-Biblicism. Biblicism radicalizes sola scriptura in a way that goes beyond the view that all doctrine must be biblically grounded to the view that all doctrine must be spelled out explicitly in the Bible. There are two issues here that I wish to address in some detail.

Using Words Not Found in the Bible

Biblicism sometimes takes the form of maintaining that we may only express biblical truths using biblical terminology. Of course, this is a common a priori objection to the doctrine of the Trinity. There are several problems with the claim.

First, the restriction against using extrabiblical words is itself not taught in Scripture. The Bible never states that in expressing doctrine or theology we must restrict ourselves to using words found in the Bible. The closest the Bible comes to making such a statement would be Paul’s injunction to Timothy, “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13 ESV). Here Paul refers Timothy to his “sound words” as a pattern or example of good teaching. Paul did not mean that Timothy was to use only the words that he heard Paul use. If he had, this might have precluded Timothy from using words found in other parts of the Bible that did not happen to be in Paul’s vocabulary!

Second, taken literally the restriction against using extrabiblical words would require us all to speak in Hebrew or Greek. If we may only use biblical words to speak about doctrinal matters, then we must use only words in Hebrew or Greek (or those Aramaic words that happen to be in the Bible). Not only is this patently absurd, but we have clear biblical precedent against any such restriction in the miracle at Pentecost, when the disciples spoke about God’s works to the people in Jerusalem in over a dozen different languages (Acts 2:5-11).

Third, non-Trinitarians typically use extrabiblical terminology to articulate their positions. For example, the terms Bible, biblical, and extrabiblical are all extrabiblical! So is the term Unitarian, although it is built on the word unity, which the Bible does use (though not in the context of the nature of God or in reference to the issue under dispute). Anthony Buzzard, a noted advocate of biblical Unitarianism, uses the term unipersonal to describe God (e.g., Doctrine of the Trinity, 15), even though this word is not in the Bible. He also describes Jesus as God’s “agent” or “representative” (43-46), terms that the Bible never applies to Jesus. Kermit Zarley (aka Servetus the Evangelical) dubs his position “exclusive God-in-Christ Christology” and describes it as a “functional” Christology (Restitution of Jesus Christ, xii).

Fourth, using different words to express and correlate ideas is a necessary part of learning. Hopefully, all of us remember being taught in school to express ideas in our own words. If we merely repeat biblical words, phrases, or statements without expressing their meaning in words that address disputed issues, we will do nothing to show that we have understood what we are repeating. If I say, “I believe that Jesus is the Son of God,” what do you know about my beliefs? You would know precious little, beyond the fact that I believe in some sort of God. I might mean that Jesus is a highly advanced extraterrestrial, or the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and Mary, or a man who manifested the cosmic dimension called the Son of God, or the first angel God created, or a man elevated to semi-divine status after his death and resurrection, or the eternal Second Person of the Trinity.

Using Concepts or Formulations Not Explicit in the Bible

A somewhat more subtle, if still a priori, objection to the doctrine of the Trinity is that the concept or formulation of the doctrine is not biblical. The argument runs as follows: The non-Trinitarian points out that Trinitarian scholars routinely acknowledge that the Bible does not teach the formal, systematic doctrine of the Trinity; that the concept of the Trinity is nowhere explicit in Scripture; that the biblical writers did not themselves think of God as triune or conceptualize God as triune; and so forth. The non-Trinitarian, aghast that such scholars would continue to adhere to a doctrine they admit they cannot find in the Bible, and commending them for their “candor,” concludes that tradition, creed, or ecclesiastical authority has evidently trumped Scripture for Trinitarians.

This objection also fails, for reasons similar to those mentioned above regarding the objection against using extrabiblical terminology. All non-Trinitarians adhere to some concepts or formulations that are not explicit anywhere in the Bible.

For example, the concept of two “canons” of Scripture, the Old Testament and the New Testament, is not formally, explicitly, or directly presented anywhere in the Bible. Indeed, many scholars argue that the very concept of “canonicity” is something that developed in the postbiblical era. I think that claim is debatable, but what is beyond debate is that the division of Scripture into the Old and New Testaments is not a concept explicit in the Bible.

Specific concepts that non-Trinitarians present in opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity also are typically not explicit in the Bible. For example, no biblical writer sets forth the distinction that Biblical Unitarians make between “the Holy Spirit” as another name for God the Father and “holy spirit” as the impersonal spiritual power of divine nature that God gives to believers (see “The Giver and the Gift”). There may or may not be something to this conceptual distinction, but it is at best an inference, not something that any biblical writer sets forth explicitly.

Systematic theology is an intellectual activity or discipline that seeks to answer specific questions that arise from the reading of Scripture. The Bible may not answer these questions explicitly, but it may provide information or statements from which the theologian infers an answer. Did God create the world ex nihilo (out of nothing), ex Deo (from God’s own being), or ex materia (from preexisting matter)? The Bible does not answer this question explicitly, but the question, once asked, is unavoidable. The theologian does his best to answer it in a way most faithful to the teaching that the Bible does present. What is the relationship between the second coming of Christ and the thousand-year period mentioned in Revelation 20? One may adhere to amillennialism, premillennialism, or postmillennialism, but none of these is set forth explicitly in the Bible. Some of these questions are more important than others, but the point is that such questions are extremely common in theology and no serious student of Christian doctrine can or should avoid them altogether.

The Westminster Confession of Faith articulates the principle I am defending here:

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men” (WCF 1.6, emphasis added).

Again, the Bible, not this or any other confession, is the authority, but the above statement nicely expresses the historic evangelical Protestant understanding of the authority of Scripture. It realistically and faithfully recognizes that the authority of Scripture is such that not only what it explicitly states, but also what logically follows from what it states, is true and important for believers to know and accept.

In short, sola scriptura means that all doctrine must derive from the teachings of Scripture, not that we are restricted to using words found in the Bible or to using concepts that one or more biblical writers explicitly formulated.

The Nature of God

I accept a classically orthodox Christian understanding of the nature and attributes of God. There are many excellent systematic theology textbooks that discuss these attributes of God, such as Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology (1998) and Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (1994). On the doctrine of God specifically, see especially John Feinberg’s No One Like Him (2001) and John Frame’s Doctrine of God (2002). There are some minor differences between Feinberg and Frame (e.g., Feinberg holds to a linear everlasting understanding of God’s relation to time, while Frame holds to divine “omnitemporality,” which is closer to the classic “timelessness” view). Nevertheless, both are excellent textbooks on the subject, carefully examining what the Bible says in constructive engagement with other theologians. Among older, popular works that I have found personally helpful, I should mention Arthur W. Pink’s The Attributes of God (Baker, 1975) and A. W. Tozer’s The Knowledge of the Holy (Harper, 1961).

The Oneness and Uniqueness of God

A couple of the divine attributes bear closer examination due to their importance for our subject. One of these is the uniqueness of God. The Bible states explicitly, in both Testaments, that there is only one God. It says this in several ways. In the Hebrew Bible, it states that there is one EL and one ELOHIM, that there is no other EL or ELOHIM besides YHWH (Jehovah), and so forth. The New Testament states that there is one theos, or only one true theos.

The Jewish creed, classically, is the statement in Deuteronomy called the Shema (“Hear”), which says, “Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH one” (Deut. 6:4), or, as most English translations today read, “the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (ESV, JPS, NIV, NKJV; NASB is similar). This verse tells us, first, that Israel has one God, namely, Jehovah. This God, Jehovah, is “one.” The sense in which Jehovah is “one” is not specified, at least not explicitly in this sentence. It could mean that there is only one deity or divine being named Jehovah. It might mean that Jehovah is a single being (which amounts to the same thing). It also might mean that Jehovah, as Israel’s God, is to occupy the first, primary, most important place in their lives. As we might put it in idiomatic English, “Jehovah is the One” or even “Jehovah is Number One!” This connotation actually has support in the immediate context, as the very next sentence says, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5). Loving Jehovah their God with all of their being was another way of saying that Jehovah was “Number One” for the Israelites.

These different nuances or connotations in the way we might read the Shema are all consistent with one another, of course. They are also consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity as well as with Unitarian forms of non-Trinitarian theology. That the Shema is consistent with Unitarianism is obvious. That it is consistent with Trinitarianism is also obvious to anyone who bothers to understand Trinitarian theology correctly. The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that Jehovah is one Jehovah, one God, one divine being. There are not three Jehovahs, or three Gods, or three divine beings. Mormons regard the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three Gods, but Trinitarians do not. We affirm and believe that there is only one God, known in the Hebrew Bible as YHWH, and that this Lord God is one eternal divine being.

The fact is that Deuteronomy 6:4 does not address the issue of whether Jehovah is a “unipersonal” or “triune” being. It is just as much a mistake to read into the Hebrew echad that Jehovah is unipersonal (as all non-Trinitarians I have read do) as it is to read into it that Jehovah is a “composite unity” (as some Trinitarians have fallaciously argued). The word echad is the common, garden-variety, ordinary Hebrew word for the cardinal number “one” (1). It occurs hundreds of times in the Hebrew Bible and just means “one,” period. It does not specify one what; in what sense Jehovah is “one” we must learn from the context or from other statements. The word is consistent with Jehovah as a unipersonal being or as a triune being. Yet critics of the doctrine of the Trinity often lean hard on this statement as supposedly an obvious disproof of the Trinity.

Consider Anthony Buzzard’s two books on the subject, The Doctrine of the Trinity (with Charles Hunting, 1998) and Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian (Restoration Fellowship, 2007). Buzzard and Hunting cite Deuteronomy 6:4 or Jesus’ citation of that text in Mark 12:29 on some 22 pages of their book. In Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, Buzzard cites these texts on at least 66 pages—about once every seven pages. Buzzard offers four arguments in connection with the Shema in support of his conclusion that it teaches that God is unipersonal.

(1) This is how Jews historically, both in Jesus’ day and to this day, understand the Shema. Indeed; but this is a historical argument, not an exegetical one. What if the understanding in Judaism is incomplete or imperfect at this point? Buzzard also states the point this way: No one, having only the Shema, would ever have arrived at a Trinitarian understanding of God. Again, true enough; but so what? It is completely unnecessary for Trinitarians to try to extract the full doctrine of the Trinity from the Shema alone. The Shema may establish one core element of the doctrine of the Trinity—that there is only one Jehovah—without establishing the rest of the doctrine.

(2) The efforts of some Trinitarian apologists to argue that the word echad means a composite unity, or that the plural form for “God” (elohim) implies a plurality of divine persons, are linguistically fallacious. I would agree; but this negative result does not establish Buzzard’s position that the text means that God is unipersonal.

(3) Other texts in the Bible use the Hebrew word echad or the Greek word heis in the context of speaking of a human being as one person (e.g., Lev. 4:27; 14:10; Josh. 23:10; Mark 14:20, 69; Rom. 9:20). Well, we know this because we know that each and every human being is one and only one person. This has nothing to do with the meaning of the words for “one,” which is simply one, and leaves undetermined whether the one Lord God is in fact unipersonal. These other texts do not tell us in what sense the Shema means that Jehovah is “one.”

(4) Galatians 3:20 states that “God is one” in a way that Buzzard claims indicates that he is one person. Translating literally, Paul writes, “Now the mediator is not of one; but God is one.” Buzzard likes the Amplified Bible’s paraphrase: “There can be no mediator with just one person. But God is only one person” (Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 314-15). But this is not what Paul wrote or meant. His point is that a mediator always mediates between two parties, or two sides, in an agreement, whereas God is only one party to the agreement. Hence translations like the following: “Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one” (Gal. 3:20 NRSV; NIV and NASB are similar). The other “party” to this agreement, by the way, was Abraham and his offspring (vv. 16-19). So the number of persons in each “party” to the agreement is not indicated by the word “one” (heis).

I could discuss other proof texts that Biblical Unitarians and other non-Trinitarians cite as proof that God is a unipersonal being, but the result will be the same in each case: such texts typically prove that God is a single being but do not address the specific Trinitarian claim that God is a unipersonal being. Non-Trinitarians typically argue, for example, that it is obvious from the pervasive use of singular pronouns for God (I, he, him, his, you [sing.]) throughout the Bible that God is only one person. This argument would be sound if by “person” we meant an individual being. However, in Trinitarian theology, a divine “person” is not an individual being, because God is one being, not three. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be refuted by assuming that it is false; and this is what non-Trinitarians do when they assume that a person can only be an individual being.

That God is a single divine being, revealed in the Old Testament as YHWH, and that YHWH alone is God, is basic and fundamental to the doctrine of the Trinity. These are core affirmations that the doctrine seeks to uphold. While Biblical Unitarians agree with these affirmations, other non-Trinitarians do not, which is why, for example, my Outline Study on the Trinity has two lengthy sections defending these affirmations. It is simply a mistake to argue against the Trinity as if it were teaching three divine beings or three Gods, or as if it did not adhere to the truth that the LORD alone is God. Monotheism is fundamental and essential to the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Incomprehensibility of God

Another attribute of God that merits close attention here is God’s incomprehensibility. In orthodox Christian theology, this term is a technical term denoting the idea that God’s being is in some ways beyond human ability to understand completely or comprehensively. It does not mean that we cannot know God, or that we cannot know some things about God, but that our knowledge of God is always partial. Furthermore, it means that some of the truths about God that we know from his self-revelation in Scripture are beyond our capacity to analyze or correlate completely. We can know that these things are true, but we find ourselves at a loss to explain them completely or to understand how all of these truths correlate with each other and with what we know about the world.

The Bible itself proclaims that God is beyond our comprehension. In a broader sense, in fact, the Bible warns us that all of our knowledge, at least in this mortal life, is incomplete, partial, and even tenuous. “If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God” (1 Cor. 8:2-3 ESV). “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12 ESV). This last text does not mean that we shall ever be omniscient, but it does emphasize that our knowledge falls woefully short of the full knowledge that we will have in the consummation.

There are two reasons (at least) that God is beyond our comprehension. The first is that God is unique. As the Creator of the world, there is nothing in this world to which we can compare God or liken him that adequately exemplifies what it means to be God (see Isa. 40:18, 25). This is why analogies for the Trinity always fall short, by the way (and why I generally avoid them). Not only do such analogies not prove the Trinity, they can never adequately illustrate or exemplify the Trinity because nothing in nature is “triune.” Every attribute of God, indeed, is unique in some respect, because God is unique. Omnipotence, for example, is not just God’s possession of quantitatively more power than anyone else has. It is his attribute of transcending all limitations of power by virtue of his unique identity as the Creator, the source of all power.

The second, related reason that God is incomprehensible is that God is infinite. By “infinite,” I do not mean that God is a numerical or quantitative infinity, but that God qualitatively transcends the finite limitations of created existence. Orthodox Christian theology affirms that God is in some way transcendent with respect to space, time, energy, and information. With respect to space, God’s transcendence is such that his being fills and exceeds all space (what theologians call his immensity) and he is personally present everywhere simultaneously (omnipresence). With respect to time, God’s transcendence is such that he is the only eternal being, having no beginning to his existence (however this is understood). With respect to energy, God transcends all limitations of power because as the Creator he is the source of all power (omnipotence). With respect to information, God is the transcendent source of all of the information in the cosmos and so of course knows all things (omniscience).

The Bible does not articulate these attributes in a formal, systematic way, as I have done here. However, it does speak of God in ways that clearly support the doctrines of divine immensity and omnipresence (Gen. 28:15; 1 Kings 8:27; Ps. 139:7-10; Isa. 66:1-2; John 4:20-24; Acts 17:28), eternity (Ps. 90:2; 102:25-27; Rom. 1:20; 1 Tim. 1:17), omnipotence (Gen. 18:14; 2 Chron. 20:6; Job 42:2; Isa. 14:27; 55:11; Jer. 32:17, 27; Dan. 4:35; Matt. 19:26; Luke 1:37), and omniscience (1 Kings 8:39; Ps. 139:1-4; 147:5; Isa. 46:9-10; 55:8-9; Matt. 10:30; Heb. 4:12; 1 John 3:20).

Many people are so comfortable with these theological affirmations that they do not realize that they attest to the incomprehensibility of God. How can God’s being to exceed the bounds of the entire cosmos and yet to be personally present everywhere at once? It seems contradictory to assert that God existed (exists?) before the universe began to exist: how can something exist before physical time began? But if there is no “before” the beginning, then didn’t God’s existence “begin” at the beginning as well? How can God know something that hasn’t happened yet? The questions easily multiply. On the basis of such questions, some people either abandon the classical Christian conception of God altogether, try to revise it in order to resolve the logical difficulties, or even claim that the very concept of God is irrational. However, orthodox Christians affirm these attributes because they find that Scripture teaches them—that this is what God reveals about himself. We are prepared to accept truths about God that Scripture reveals (explicitly or implicitly) even though these truths are often beyond our ability to comprehend fully or to penetrate logically. They are not illogical, but they transcend our ability to provide a perfectly logical analysis of them that leaves nothing unexplained or correlated.

In an online article, Biblical Unitarian author Don Snedeker quotes the following statement from a book on the Trinity that I published over twenty years ago: “Trinitarians are willing to live with a God they cannot fully comprehend” (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 138). (It isn’t clear that Snedeker has actually read the book, since he quotes this sentence from the book’s back cover.) Snedeker then comments:

So are Unitarians, and we do every day. The debate is not whether or not God is fully comprehensible under either system of beliefs. The debate is whether or not Trinitarians have reasonably made the leap from God being one to Him being three-in-one…. It is one thing for us not to comprehend something we do not fully understand…. However, it is quite another thing for it to be impossible to know something to be true. This latter case arises when contradictory assertions are made about the same thing. For example, on the trinitarian hypothesis God is said to be both three and one, which is a proposition that cannot be predicated of the same being. Hence it must be false. The way in which we use language and words disqualifies such a statement from being true. Something is either three or one, but not both. Since in trinitarian theology no reasonable qualifications of the predicates three and one are offered, the proposition about God being both is rightly rejected.

The type of accusation that Snedeker makes here is one that many critics have made against the classical Christian attributes of God, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Critics allege that these attributes lead to logical inconsistencies and therefore cannot be true. I disagree. The divine attributes, as well as the triunity of God, lead to logical difficulties but not to genuine logical contradictions.

Snedeker claims that Trinitarianism offers no “reasonable qualifications of the predicates three and one.” The qualification “reasonable” is the slippery term in this criticism. Trinitarianism does offer qualifications of these predicates: God is one God, one divine being, but three persons (with the term person stipulated to be used with a somewhat different connotation as compared to its use for human beings). Given this qualification, the doctrine may be metaphysically difficult or problematic, but it is not a simple logical contradiction.

By no means am I arguing that people should simply accept the Trinity on my say-so and not ask any difficult questions. I am not using “mystery” (a term I normally do not even use in this context) as a catch-all explanation or a smokescreen. Whatever we can understand of God’s revelation in Scripture, we should make every effort to understand. But approaches to Scripture that a priori disallow all mystery, paradox, or incomprehensibility are just as illegitimate as approaches that impose mystery or paradox where there is none. Logic is a set of tools for discovering truth, not a set of rules for dictating truth. We should use reason to clarify what the biblical texts say, not to dictate to them what they can and cannot say.

I am concerned here only to plead that non-Trinitarians not dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity, or any other doctrine, merely because it is difficult to understand. In the context of this debate, I am anticipating and arguing against a priori objections that amount to saying that the Trinity cannot be true regardless of what the Bible may say. And that is precisely what Snedeker’s objection is. He is arguing that the Trinity “must be false” by definition. Such a claim really is a way of shutting the door on any inquiry into whether the Bible might teach such a doctrine. There is no reason to examine the texts if one has already decided that the doctrine in question is false by definition. Indeed, the presupposition that the Bible cannot teach anything that is not susceptible to our logical analysis will (ironically) lead us to interpret individual texts unreasonably—to force them to conform to what we have a priori decided is possible. Let us not go that way. Instead, let us examine the Bible with an open mind, even though it may lead to a God who is beyond our ability to comprehend or analyze logically. He might just be the real God.Similar Posts:

• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part II: One in Power?
• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? C: John 17:21-23
• The Great Trinity Debate, Part 6: Rob Bowman’s Closing Statement
• Must One Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?
• The Great Trinity Debate Challenge

UPDATE: I have already deleted about 10 comments today. Please don’t just spam with quotes from the church fathers. Had the poster who did read the entire series, he would have seen that the quotes used don’t argue against sola Scriptura, properly defined. So please, if you are going to engage, read the rest of the series. I don’t have the time to recreate all the previous posts so that others can get up to speed enough to engage here! Thanks for your attention to the blog rules as well.

I have attempted to present a balanced look at the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. This is a doctrine that I hold to very strongly and believe is a sine qua non of Protestantism. What I mean by this is that this doctrine forms an essential bedrock of Reformation orthodoxy.

In the previous posts I have step by step attempted to defend this doctrine against competing models of authority held by both Catholics and (sometimes) Eastern Orthodox. But one of the most substantial claims that those who deny sola Scriptura make is that it does not find representation in the history of the church. In fact, Roman Catholics would argue that church history holds to a dual-source theory where unwritten tradition and Scripture are equal and the Magisterial authority of the Catholic church infallibly interprets both.

I agree that it would be a substantial argument if in the history of the church we cannot find the principles of sola Scriptura being held, but this is simply not the case. I offer two arguments here:

1. To require that one produce an articulated view of sola Scriptura in history is anachronistic. An anachronism is where one enforces a contemporary articulation of an idea or use of a word on an ancient audience. This is not unlike what many Christian cults do with the doctrine of the Trinity. They ask orthodox Christians to produce historical verification for the Trinity prior to 325 A.D. (the date of the Council of Nicea, when the Trinity was articulated in its near current form). They are not looking for seeds of the principle beliefs, but an actual articulation. Expecting to find the doctrine of sola Scriptura commits the same type fallacy. Both suffer from the same presumption that if something is true, we will find it in its current articulated form from the beginning. This assumption is unjustified and finds no parallel in any other discipline.

The doctrine of sola Scriptura as defined in this series was explained and articulated as such precisely because of the controversies of the 16th century. Search all you will and you will not find the phase “sola Scriptura” before the Reformation just as you won’t find the word “Trinity” commonly used before Nicea. But, in both cases, I do believe you will find the doctrine in seed form. In other words, the doctrine of sola Scriptura was undeveloped before the Reformation, but it was present in its undeveloped form.

As I have argued many times, there is a development that doctrine goes through, and controversy is the adrenaline to its development. If there is no controversy, it will remain an assumed part of tradition. It’s assumption does not mean it is right or wrong, it just means that the church had yet to deal with it substantially and holistically. (See my “An Emerging Understanding of Orthodox” for a more thorough breakdown of doctrinal development theory.)

2. Sola Scriptura did exist in seed form. I am going to post some quotes from the early church fathers. Those who are opposed to what I am arguing will say that I have taken these out of context, but the truth is that we all see what we are conditioned to see. If you are dead set on rejecting sola Scriptura and highly respect the witness of history, you will simply form a theological context around these statement so that they say what your theology says they must say. But I have been a student of church history for long enough to say that the more I read the early church fathers, the more I am convinced that they held to an unarticulated form of sola Scriptura. In other words, for most of church history, the Scriptures have been the final and only infallible source for truth.

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Notice how Irenaeus equates the traditions with the Scriptures. They proclaimed the truth at first (unwritten tradition), and “at a later period” handed it down “in the Scriptures” which is now the “ground and pillar of our faith.” Sounds very Protestant.

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”

Notice the final court of appeal is the Scriptures, not the church. The “those” who are encouraged to toil in the most excellent pursuits do not refer to the church ecclesiastical authority, but to all people. All people are encouraged here to search for truth and find it finally in the Scriptures.

Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 395)
On the Holy Trinity NPNF, p. 327
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

Again, the final court of arbitration is the Scriptures, not the church. Respect is always given to the ecclesiastical authority and tradition by the early church, but Scriptures hold a unique place of authority.

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”

This speaks to the vital doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture that we dealt with earlier. The Scriptures being “fully sufficient,” is simply a seed form of sola Scriptura.

Basil the Great (ca. 329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.  What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”

This sounds a lot like Martin Luther at Worms. While we respect the tradition of the Fathers, they don’t bring contentment unless they followed the Scriptures.

Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?”

This is even stronger than I would go. Ambrose sounds a little fundamentalistic. In fairness, it was the particular issues – doctrinal issues – which brought this about. The answer to Ambrose’s question could not be more plain. We cannot adopt those things which we do not find in holy Scriptures because Scripture is our final and only infallible authority.

St. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

The most important thing to notice here is the belief that the Catholic bishops can err. Agreement with them is not based upon some infallible authority which they possess, but is measured against the canonical Scriptures of God!

Again, to be sure, there is a great respect and authority given to tradition in the early church as there was among the Reformers. Protestants need to understand this when studying history. But I do not believe that the most prominent of the early church fathers would have rejected the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura properly defined.

While I have great respect for many who do not agree with me on this issue, I believe that I have represented a compelling case both biblically and historically that the Scriptures are the final and only infallible source in matters of faith and practice. To be sure, this does open up the problem of interpretation that we are always going to have, but, in the end, we must follow the truth as God has revealed it. Scriptures are the norma normans sed non normata—”the norm of norms which is not normed.”

This series is now complete! Who says I don’t finish what I start?Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• What Sola Scriptura Does NOT Mean
• In Defense of Sola Scripture, Part 9: A Biblical Defense
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Two – Martin Luther
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Three – An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory

The Scripture implicitly and explicitly speaks of its unique authority and sufficiency.

2 Tim. 3:14–17
“You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know who taught you and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.”

Notice here that the Scriptures are sufficient to give Timothy “wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” So they are sufficient for salvation. Notice as well that the Scriptures are to be used for “training in righteousness” so that the person dedicated to God may be capable of “every [pan]good work” (emphasis added). If Paul truly believes that Scripture is sufficient for every good work, then this gives much credence to the basic foundational principles of the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This says that the Scriptures are sufficient for sanctification as well as salvation. The Scriptures are sufficient and,therefore, lacking in nothing.

Three things this passage teaches us:

Similar Posts:

• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Three – An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Five – What is Tradition?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part 10 – A Historical Defense

I am a Calvinist, others are Arminian. I believe in a premillenial eschatology, others are amillinial. I am a traducianist with regards to the creation of the soul, others are creationists. I believe in inerrancy, others believe that this is an archaic naive doctrine. There are many points of doctrinal division that I am going to have with people, some of which are much more important than others.

Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Who is causing this disunity in the body of Christ, them or me? Do these division demonstrate the doctrinal bankruptcy of sola Scriptura? Should we elect of a Pope of Protestantism?

There are a few different ways that I could answer this.

1. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied deep enough (lack of scholarship).
2. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied broad enough (lack of perspective).
3. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied long enough (lack of wisdom).
4. Others don’t agree with me because their traditional prejudices have created a learning disability that keeps them from the truth (lack of freedom of thought).
5. Others don’t agree with me because they have sin in their life that is blinding them to the truth (lack of holiness).
6. Others don’t agree with me because we don’t have an infallible authoritative interpreter of Scripture that would bring doctrinal unity?
7. Others don’t agree with me because they are not Christian. If they were, well . . . they would agree with me! (lack of salvation).

Generally speaking, I do not default to these possibilities. Don’t get me wrong, these are all possibilities. It could be that people deny the truth (assuming that my position is such) due to ignorance, lack of perspective or wisdom, traditional bindings, sin, lack of authority, or a presupposition of godlessness. But I think we need to be careful about any negative prejudgments about people motives and the ultimate reasons for disagreements.

Here are the considerations that I would aspire to make before I draw upon the former possibilities.

Others don’t agree with me because they are right and I am wrong.

Granted, I am convicted I am right. If this were not the case I would simply change my position. But the possibility always exists that I am the one who is in error, being misinformed, motivated by false pre-understandings, traditionally bound, or lacking perspective. I must consider this with great humility, as hard as it is to do.

There are some things that I am more sure of than others. For example, I am less likely to be wrong about the existence of God than I am about the doctrine of inerrancy. It is much more plausible that there is an error in the Scriptures than it is that God does not exist. As well, I am humbled by the fact that there are many things that I used to believe that I no longer believe. I held to these former beliefs with (what seems to be) just as much conviction as many of the beliefs that I hold to now. What do I do with that? In most of those cases, the evidence, or lack there-of, militated against my previous doctrinal commitments forcing me to make hard adjustments. For example, I used to believe that if someone did not accept the doctrine of inerrancy, they were not Christian. This was due to my fundamentalist presuppositions no doubt, but when faced with the evidence that there are many people out there who do not hold to inerrancy, yet loved and trusted the same Christ as me, my position had to either change or slumber in the bedroom of naivety. I still have those decisions to make. It is called learning.

What I must realize is this: there is not one belief that I hold to which is protected by infallibility. Infallibility is the other side of the coin of absolute certainty. Absolute certainty can only be held by those who have all the information and are interpreting it correctly. To be infallible means that you cannot fail. Since I am not infallible, by definition, I can fail. All of my beliefs are subject to my attribute of fallibility. There is no one who possesses infallibility. Even Roman Catholics, as we have said, who try to alleviate themselves of this reality by trusting in the dictates of an infallible magisterial authority such as the Pope inevitably face the same problem since their own trust in the infallible authority of the Pope is fallible. The same holds true for Evangelicals and our infallible Bible. Our belief in the Bible is fallible, even if the Bible itself is not. No one can escape their own fallibility. Therefore we all could be wrong. We are left to rely on a process of examining and weighting the evidence and following it wherever it leads. This will often cause us to change our beliefs.

Therefore, serious consideration must always be made of the proposition that people don’t agree with me because I am the one who is wrong.

Others don’t agree with me because God does not want us to agree, irrespective of who is right.

This may sound odd, but we must consider it. I said earlier that I was a Calvinist. While this does not give me exclusive right to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, it does require me to consider what part it might play in the question Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? What I am really asking is this: Why isn’t everyone unified around the truth?

I believe that it is a real possibility—even likely—that God does not want absolute doctrinal unity. In fact, practically speaking, I think it would do more harm than good. I believe that doctrinal disagreements are healthy for the church. When there is conflict between opposing options, the issue at hand is understood at a more profound level than is possible in the absence of the conflict. Conflict, in the end, can bring about a deeper conviction of the truth. When there is no conflict, there is no iron sharpening iron.

I am not in any sense trying to relativize the truth, but to help us to understand that wrong beliefs, even our own, could be serving the purpose of God and bringing Him more honor than we recognize. It is often said that heresy is God’s gift to the church. Why? Because when a false option is presented the truth becomes much clearer. In contrast there is clarity. In clarity there is conviction.

It is for this reason that we must be continually engaged with alternative options. As hard as it is to engage in beliefs that go against our present convictions, we need to recognize the value of the struggle. Herein lies what I believe to be one of the greatest strengths of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura—it presents the opportunity to wrestle with the issues at a level that is not allowed for in magisterial based traditions.

What I am saying is this: it may actually be God’s sovereignty that brings about division over the doctrine of God’s sovereignty! This does not mean that wrong belief is always justified. Neither does it mean that we need to be content with agnosticism or lessen our conviction about any doctrinal issue. To the contrary. It means that we engage in it more vigorously than we did before, being confident that God has a dignifying reason for conflict resulting from diversity.

We have learned to celebrate diversity in every area of life. We celebrate the diversity of the sexes. Men: We know that we are always right, but can you imagine a world where women did not contribute to a balanced perspective? That is horrifying. Women, can you imagine the opposite (don’t answer that!). Think of the diversity among personalities, nations, political parties, age groups, and cultures. While we may believe that our opinion is correct (and it may be), from a certain perspective we can appreciate the allowance for a dissension in values, beliefs, and practices. Understanding diversity can often cause us to see that the answer to many issues is going to be more of a both/and rather than an either/or. We could both be right and we could both be wrong.

In the end, if God is in control then the answer to my question is relatively simple. Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Because it is not God’s will for them to. It is to His glory. Why? His will is better accomplished through diversity. In this I think we can learn to celebrate diversity without yielding to the postmodern matrix of relativism or apathy.

Advocates of sola Scriptura appreciate disagreements, but we also need to be careful about making the division created by such too wide.Similar Posts:

• “Why Doesn’t Everyone Agree with Me?” or Doctrinal Disagreement to the Glory of God
• The Problem of Nominal Christianity
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part 10 – A Historical Defense
• Where I stand on all things part 1
• Michael Spencer on the Problems of Evangelicalism

Without the infallible declaration of the Church, there would be no way of knowing what books belong in the canon of Scripture. Since there is no inspired canon of Scripture, the “Scripture alone” is not even enough to establish what Scriptures are truly Scripture. Therefore, the doctrine of sola Scriptura is self-defeating.

This is true. I am looking on page 23 of my Bible and it has the list of books. The books all together number 66, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. This is often referred to as the “canon” of Scripture. “Canon” (Gk. kanon) means “rule” or “measuring rod.” The canon of Scripture is the collection or a “rule” of books that Christians believe belong in the Bible. There are some variations among Christian traditions concerning the number of books. The Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches all use different canons (as well, some eastern churches will vary still). The Catholic and Orthodox include a group of books in their Bibles referred to as the Deuterocanonical books (”second canon”) or, as Protestants would call it, the “Apocrypha” (although the Orthodox church is not quite as settled upon the status of the Apocrypha).

The question How do you know what books belong in the Bible? is a significant one indeed and presents, what I believe to be, the most persuasive argument against sola Scriptura that there is. The Catholics and Orthodox will normally refer to the establishment of these books as part of the canon by fourth century councils. Catholics would further refer to the teachings of the council of Trent (1545-1563) which dogmatically and infallibly declared the current Catholic canon (including the Apocrypha) as being authoritative.

I believe that the 66 books of the Protestant canon belong in the Bible, no more no less. I believe that all 66 books are inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Yet the list on page 23 of my Bible is not part of the canon. In other words, the list itself is not part of the inspired word of God. I am using the New American Standard Bible, but it is the same in any version of any language. Even the NET Bible does not have an inspired list—even in the footnotes! There is no early Greek or Hebrew manuscript that solves the problem either. Therefore I have a potential difficulty. Since do not believe in an infallible human authority that has determined what books belong in the Bible, how can I be certain what books belong in the Bible and still profess sola Scriptura?

It would seem that the Scripture alone is not sufficient to establish the Scripture alone!! Do we have an fallible canon of infallible books?

It was R.C. Sproul who first made the claim that Protestants have a fallible canon of infallible books. A fallible canon of infallible books? What good is that? Catholics often jest about the seemingly ironic situation in which advocates of sola Scriptura find themselves. Catholics claim that they, due to their belief in a living infallible authority, have an infallible collection of infallible books, and that we are just borrowing from them!

Not only this (as an aside), but what about interpretation? Not only do Protestants not believe in an infallible authority to dogmatize which books belong in the Bible, but they don’t believe in an infallible authority to interpret the Bible. Therefore, we can take this to the next level. Protestants have a fallible interpretation of an fallible canon of infallible books. Ouch! Sounds like it is time to convert to Catholicism, eh?

Not so fast. In the end, this is an issue of epistemology. Epistemology deals with the question “How do you know?” How do we know the canon is correct? How do we know we have the right interpretation? Assumed within these questions is the idea of certainty. How do you know with certainty? Not only this, but how do you know with absolute certainty?

The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to 1) be justified in our belief about that something, 2) to be held responsible for a belief in that something. I would answer “no” for two primary reasons:

1. This supposed need for absolute certainty is primarily the product of the enlightenment and a Cartesian epistemology. To say that we have to be infallibly certain about something before it can be believed and acted upon is setting the standard so high that only God Himself could attain to it. Outside of mathematics and analytical statements (e.g. a triangle had three sides), there is no absolute certainty, only relative certainty. This does not, however, give anyone an excuse or alleviate responsibility for belief in something.

For example, I believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I prepare each day with this belief in mind. Each night, I set my alarm clock and review my appointments for the following day, having a certain expectation that the next day will truly come. While I have certainty about the sun rising the next day, I don’t have infallible certainty that it will. There could be some astronomical anomaly that causes the earth to stop its rotation. There could be an asteroid that comes and destroys the earth. Christ could come in the middle of the night. In short, I don’t have absolute infallible certainty about the coming of the next day. This, however, does not give me an excuse before men or God for not believing that it will come. What if I missed an early appointment the next day and told the person “I am sorry, I did not set my alarm clock because I did not have infallible certainty that this day would come.” Would that be a valid excuse? It would neither be a valid excuse to the person who I was supposed to meet or to God.

We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: “mentally ill.” Remember What About Bob? He was mentally ill because he made decisions based on the improbability factor. Because it was a possibility that something bad could happen to him if he stepped outside his house, he assumed it would happen. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is a probability that it won’t.

The same can be said about the canon and interpretation of Scripture. Just because there is a possibility that we are wrong (being fallible), does not mean that it is a probability. Therefore, we look to the evidence for the degree of probability concerning Scripture.

2. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, “The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. Catholic scholars admit, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement [either about the canon or interpretation of the canon] of their church is true” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 216).

Here is a graph to illustrate what I mean:

This means that we are all floating in the same river, just different boats. Catholics (Dual-Source Theory) have a fallible belief about an infallible authority; Advocates of sola Scriptura have a fallible belief about an infallible authority. Both authorities must be substantiated by the evidence and both authorities must be interpreted by fallible people. In the end, what is the difference? Advocates of sola Scriptura just cut out the infallible middle man.

Do advocates of sola Scriptura have a fallible collection of infallible books? Yes. We concede such. When all is said and done, all of our beliefs are fallible and therefore subject to error. But remember, the possibility of error does not necessitate the probability of error. We have to appeal to the evidence to decide. God would [probably] accept nothing less. Similar Posts:

• Responding to an Objection About Sola Scriptura
• Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It!
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Three – An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part One – Authority Across the Spectrum

3. Christ gave infallible authority over the Church to the Apostles and their successors (apostolic succession). Roman Catholic Only: Peter and his successors were given the ultimate and infallible authority in the Church (”papacy” or the “Seat of Rome”).

Jn. 20:23
[Christ, speaking to the apostles] “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.”

Matt. 18:18
“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”

This represents the ultimate authority of the Church which has the authority to “bind” and “release.”

Matt. 16:17–19
“And Jesus answered him, ‘You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”

For the Roman Catholic, this teaches that Peter was given a special and ultimate authority among the Apostles. Therefore, his successors (the Bishop of Rome, the Pope), would naturally carries this same authority.

Response:

It is agreed that Peter and the apostles were given authority and the guidance to teach the truth. Their authority and teaching continues today. But, from a Protestant perspective, this authority and teaching is not through an unbroken lineage of succession, but through their teaching contained in the Scripture. In other words, Protestant believe in apostolic succession, but believe that this succession is a succession in teaching, not necessarily person.

However, Protestants should recognize that a succession in person is a necessary part of the succession in teaching (this is why we still practice ordination).  It is not a guarantee of the proper succession and must be continually tested by a foundational source (Scripture). In fact, I think we as Protestants should deeply consider our attitude toward the doctrine of apostolic succession. The common free Protestant mentality is fueled by those who find no connection, no accountability, indeed, no knowledge of the faith that has gone before them. This is not to our credit. We need to find a way to reassess our position here. I would be a strong advocate of any movement to re-institute the norm of apostolic succession within the Evangelical church at large. Again, this would not involve some infallible guarantee, but it does connect us to the historic Christian faith rather than our own johnny-come-lately denominational bent. (More on this someday).

Nevertheless, concerning some infallible conference being passed on through the Apostles to some successors, while this might be nice and I have nothing against it, I simply have no reason, outside of a pragmatic desire for unity, to believe such occurred. The Scriptures presented concerning the authority of the apostles concerns them alone. There is nothing, from what I can see, said either explicitly or implicitly concerning the passing on of some infallible authority through apostolic succession.

Concerning the Roman Catholic idea of ultimate infallible authority being conferred on the successors of Peter, this idea cannot be found in the Church until the late Middle Ages (unless forced into the thoughts of the Church fathers). As well, it was not declared dogma by the Catholic Church until Vatican I (1870). See here in Vatican I:

“The Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff [Pope] hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.”

From my perspective (and I think I speak with some common sense here), if God wanted believers to see the Church as an institutional authority that houses infallibility, either through the unity of the bishops or the ex cathedra statements of the Pope, then it goes without saying that this would be a primary doctrine that the Bible should address.

While the Scriptures contain many opportunities to teach this type of apostolic succession, either through example in the book of Acts or through explicit instruction in the Pastoral epistles, there is no such teaching. The Scriptures just don’t teach that the Apostles conferred their authority—infallible authority—on anyone else.

To rely solely upon unwritten Tradition begs the question and makes one wonder why such an important doctrine is unmentioned in Scripture. All attempts to find the doctrine of infallible apostolic succession in Scripture, in my opinion, must be labeled as eisegetical theology (reading your theology into the text, rather than deriving one’s theology from the text).

In the end, suffice it to say that advocates of sola Scriptura believe in apostolic succession (succession in teaching—small “a”), not Apostolic succession (succession in person—big “A”)Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Three – An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory
• Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #2
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• Evangelicals: Lets Rethink Apostolic Succession
• The Rise of Rome in a Nutshell

2. The New Testament writers clearly speak about the importance of Tradition.

2 Thess. 2:15
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

Notice the dual sources of the one teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2
“I praise you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I passed them on to you.”

This illustrates that traditions (paradosis) are what is being passed on. At the very least, this should help to take the focus off the way in which a tradition is handed down. In other words, the focus is not on written tradition as sola Scriptura advocates tend to believe.

Jude 1:3
“Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel compelled instead to write to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

Notice, the faith was delivered to the “saints.” The “saints” represent a living entity of preservation, not a book, which we know as the Church.

Sola Scriptura response:

The New Testament does speak of the importance of tradition, but the tradition that is referred to in these passages is the Gospel message that was eventually recorded in the New Testament (regula fidei). There is no reason to believe that the New Testament writers were speaking of some infallible “unwritten Tradition” that was separate from the message of the New Testament and that was to be passed on through an unbroken succession of bishops throughout the ages.

In this sense, “tradition” simply refers to the Gospel message. It was handed down in two forms, as it always has, written and unwritten. But these two forms are not distinct bodies of information, and there is no reason to think that they are. As time goes on, all tradition that is not codified in some form becomes increasingly unreliable (think phone tag). That is why the Gospel message was ultimately preserved in the Apostles’ writing and canonized in the New Testament.

This chart helps illustrate:

Notice here that advocates of sola Scriptura recognize the equal authority of the Apostles unwritten teaching while alive (word of mouth). We also recognize its abiding influence into the first few centuries of the church (though diminishing in reliability). This is why we believe that these teachings were codified in the New Testament canon. Eighty-percent of the New Testament canon (Gospels, Acts, Pauline corpus) were accepted as authoritative by the mid second century, possibly as early as the late first century.

Certainly, various traditions arose in the practice and liturgy of the first few centuries of the early church, but these traditions should not be seen as a prescriptive mandate on how to do church. Neither should they be understood as an equal authority to that of Scripture. There is simply no justification to do so.

Of course the message was “handed to the saints” as it is the saints (Christians) who are responsible for the passing on of the Gospel, not any institutional authority.

Next, I will response to the third argument for the Dual-Source Theory.Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Three – An Argument for the Dual-Source Theory
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part One – Authority Across the Spectrum
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part 10 – A Historical Defense
• What Sola Scriptura Does NOT Mean