After studying the doctrine of the Church in the Bible, the next question we had was: If the Church is the final authority for all Christians and this authority was setup by Christ and the Apostles; where does Scripture come into play? After all, the Catholic Church tried to bury Scripture, right?
Our Bible in the Adventist Church had 66 books, 39 Old Testament Books, and 27 New Testament Books. The Catholic Church has its own Bible, with more books. So my first question is who changed the canon and either added or removed books from the Bible? I realized that I had only accepted my Bible because I was told it was the Bible, but I had really never studied why certain books were included and others were left out, when these decisions were made, why these decisions were made, and why some use a different set of books.
Basically we accepted the Protestant “tradition” of what constitutes the correct Scriptures. (Well, it is tradition right? Since the list of books that should be included in the canon was no where specified in the Bible, that makes it a tradition, not a Scriptural teaching!) As Protestants we followed many traditions, but I never really looked at them that way.
So, being a cradle Adventist, we believed that the Bible was rule and guide of our faith and believed in a doctrine that was started by Martin Luther and the reformation 1500 years after Christ. It is usually referred to as “Sola Scriptura”. What is Sola Scriptura? Basically it is the belief that the Bible and the Bible alone is the rule of our faith, belief, and practice. The belief is that the Bible and the Bible alone contains all we need in our lives to allow us to come to a complete understanding of the issues required for salvation. Accordingly, because of a belief in Sola Scriptura, the Bible is said to be the foundation of the Adventist and other Protestant churches, and is supposed to have supreme authority. The SDA Church generally teach that anything outside of the Bible and EGW is at best secondary to the Bible, and generally has no authority, and may actually hurt your relationship with God if you spend too much time dwelling on it! (This of course did not apply to church sponsored books)
So after what we learned about the doctrine of the church, namely that the church was the foundation and pillar of truth, it seemed that these two doctrines were at complete odds with each other. In fact I was convinced that they were! Let’s look at the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to find out why.
First, if according to Sola Scriptura, we are supposed to find all of our foundational beliefs in the Bible, then it would be logical to assume that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is taught in the Bible, right? That would be logical; however, when we went to find Sola Scriptura in Scripture it wasn’t there!
NO WHERE in the Bible will you find that it (the Bible) is to be used as the sole rule of faith! Don’t you find it strange that the idea that our beliefs have to be found in the Bible…IS ITSELF NOT IN THE BIBLE!! Do you see the humor and contradiction in this? Yes, we found out that our whole foundation for belief in Adventism, i.e. that it could and should be found in the Bible alone, was false, because that belief itself can’t be found in the Bible.
But wait, you say, “I have heard it taught several times at church and at Revelation Seminars. I know it is Biblical!” Let’s take a look at some of the verses that Adventist’s and other Protestants use to prove that their doctrine of Sola Scriptura is Biblical. As we do this, notice that it says several things about Scripture, things like:
The Bible is profitable or useful for teaching
That the Bible is wonderful and trustworthy
That the Bible is faithful
Catholics believe all those things too, but do any verses say that the Bible is our only authority for faith and doctrine?
First let’s look at Isaiah 8:20
“ISAIAH 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.”
Does this text, and the context of this passage prove Sola Scriptura? The simple answer is no. The preceding verse gives us some insight as to what was being said; unfortunately this is seldom shown in the revelation seminars.
“ISAIAH 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits and unto the wizards, that chirp and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? On behalf of the living `should they seek' unto the dead?
ISAIAH 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.”
Now, taken with a little more context it is clear that this verse is actually a warning to those who would try to seek out mediums that they need to obey what they have already been told. Hardly a sound verse to use to prove that Scripture as we know it today (half of which was not even written then) should be our only rule of faith.
Let’s move on to the next most popular, 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
“2 TIMOTHY 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2 TIMOTHY 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. “
Ok, first, what is this “Scripture” being referred to here? We know that the New Testament as have it, had not been compiled or considered as Scripture at this point in time, so it could have only been the Old Testament. So even if this WAS a proof that our beliefs should come from Scripture and Scripture alone, it certainly was not speaking of the New Testament which had not been completed.
“So what is this verse saying? John Henry Newman a Protestant Anglican Bishop turned Catholic explains this verse very well when he said "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatsoever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic Epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the Scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith." (1884, Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation.")
Do you get the point that John Henry Newman was making? First, this verse teaches only that Scripture is profitable, not sufficient for use in doctrinal matters. Second, if this proved anything, it proves only that “the Scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith." I realize this flies in the face of most of what you and I have been, but if you review these verses, they do not at all teach what the Adventist and other Protestant churches would have you believe they teach!
Now, does what I am saying harmonize with what we learned about the doctrine of the Church? Yes it does, the Church is the supreme pillar of truth and we are taught by the Church through her offices. Scripture is also useful (profitable) for us to use in matters of faith, doctrine, etc. However, does the Bible ever say it is to supersede the authority which was placed in the Church? No!
Notice, the Bible never commands Christians to create printing presses or writings to distribute the Scriptures or to teach people to read. In fact, it never even mentions that additional Scriptures would be added to the already known canon, that is quite a missing piece for something that according to Protestants was to become our only rule and guide to faith!
The Bible and history show that the true Church of Christ teaches us using the Bible as a tool, not as a supreme authority. This is in following with the tradition of teaching began by Christ and continued by the Apostles. Notice this next passage:
2 TIMOTHY 2:2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Timothy is not instructed to write down what he has learned and then use it as the rule of faith. He is told to take what he has heard in the oral teachings of the Church, in this case the Apostles and their ordained successors, and in turn, teach this to others, who will teach it to others, who will in turn teach it to others. Do you see what is happening here? Succession! This is an example of Biblical succession and not only succession in offices like we saw in the doctrine of the church, but this is succession in teaching doctrine of the church. What don’t we see here? We don’t see Timothy told to teach the Scriptures or even to use them, but instead to teach what he had been taught orally.
Will these oral teachings, sometimes called Oral Traditions or Sacred Traditions, differ from what is taught in Scripture? No! They may differ from our understanding of Scripture, but then again, we are imperfect interpreters, which is why Christ committed ultimate authority for teaching to the Church. Not to a book and my personal or even public interpretations of the book, nor your interpretations of the book. Not even the General Conference’s personal interpretations, or a committee’s interpretations, even if they all agree. Christ gave us Scripture, with an interpreter in the Church that he established nearly 2000 years ago, the same Church that He promised to be with till the end of the age and to protect from the Gates of Hell. If the Church, which Christ founded, was allowed to spread poisoned interpretations of the Scriptures, then surely the Gates of Hell have prevailed, and the result would be the death of the church body and it would mean that Christ lied, a conclusion that we all know is false.
“When all is said and done, Protestants who accept Sola Scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to the "Bible's clear teaching" and oftentimes act as if they have no tradition which guides their own interpretation.
This is similar to people on two sides of a legal, constitutional debate both saying, "well, we go by what is constitutional, whereas you guys don't." Like such appeals to the Bible, appeals to the U.S. Constitution are also not sufficient in and of themselves to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are binding (short of an appeal, which merely sends the determination to a higher-level court). The Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future Supreme Court or by constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal which settles the matter.
But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book (which must always be interpreted by human beings). Obviously (given the divisions in Protestantism) simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or they adopt a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictories are fine or where the doctrine is so "minor" that it doesn't matter what opinion one holds concerning it. But the Bible doesn't teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians can freely and joyfully disagree in such a fashion, either. Denominationalism is as vigorously condemned as Sola Scriptura. “ (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ406.HTM)
The New Testament:
Why don’t the Adventist and other Protestant churches quote from the Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas? Why do they accept the 27 books, instead of 29 or 26?
All Protestant churches accept the canon of the New Testament, which was, decided on by the Church which Christ founded through Peter and the Apostles. The term “Catholic Church” means “Universal Church” (catholic = universal), and so the council consisted of bishops of the churches of several areas and cities.
To make it brief, Pope Damascus, Jerome, and the synod convened by the Pope’s authority considered the question of which books were to be included in canon and which were not. Sacred Oral Tradition formed much of the basis for deciding on what we now call Scripture. Our current New Testament Canon or “written tradition” as it was often called, was decided on by none other than the Catholic Church in a synod overseen by the bishop of Rome. Since this synod in 382, the canon has been challenged but never changed.
The Council of Trent in 1546 had to revisit this issue of the canon because of challenges by Protestant reformers who placed their ability to interpret Scriptures above that authority which Christ setup with teaching authority.
“”This ecumenical synod had to defend the integrity of the New Testament as well as the Old against the attacks of the pseudo-Reformers, Luther, basing his action on dogmatic reasons and the judgment of antiquity, had discarded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse as altogether uncanonical. Zwingli could not see in Apocalypse a Biblical book. “ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
So, as we now see, the Scriptures as we accept them, which the Protestant churches claim are their sole authority, were in reality decided upon by the Catholic Church some 300 years after the death of Christ. Obviously, the Sola Scriptura proponents cannot find the canonical list of the New Testament in Scripture, but instead accept the authority of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ and his Apostles, to decide the matter of canon vs. non-canon. The belief in the current 27 books of the New Testament is again another non-Scripturally supported belief or tradition that the Adventist and Protestant churches hold as true, in spite of claiming to be a church that has ALL their beliefs found in Scripture.
Scripture, both Old and New testaments, was written to people who already believed and who already had been taught the truth. Why then, would we expect them to contain an exhaustive and complete record of the things that the Christians of the time had already been taught? They were written as letters to Christians that had already accepted God and the Christian doctrines. The books of the New Testament were not written as a comprehensive set of teachings for those who were NOT already Christians. Outside of the Gospels, all the books of the New Testament were written to churches full of believers who had already been converted, so they took for granted that the readers knew the fundamentals of Christianity.
Which came first, the Bible or the Church? We know of course that the Bible grew out of the Church, not the other way around. There was and is a Church regardless as to whether or not there was ever going to be a Bible. That church contained all the teaching authority that was needed for salvation and conversion of sinners. The Bible as we know it was an addition that was compiled far later, to assist the Church in teaching. It is too bad the reformers were confused about this when they made up the human tradition of Sola Scriptura, 1500 years after Christ’s death.
So, I now ask, by what authority or criteria do each of you accept each book of the New Testament Canon?
The Old Testament:
If that is true, why don’t we accept the same Old Testament as the Catholic Church? The reason is because Protestants have chosen to remove books, which they call the Apocrypha.
“The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha". These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
So, why does the Catholic Church continue to keep the canon of the Old Testament as it was originally recognized? The Jews of the Diaspora and some in Jerusalem used the canon of the Old Testament with the deuteron-canonical books included. The early church fathers used these same books in their writings, therefore it is evident that they accepted them as part of the Old Testament Canon, these are often the same Christians who were taught directly by the Apostles.
“The sub-Apostolic writings of Clement, Polycarp, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, of the pseudo-Clementine homilies, and the "Shepherd" of Hermas, contain implicit quotations from or allusions to all the deuterocanonicals except Baruch (which anciently was often united with Jeremias) and I Maccabees and the additions to David. No unfavourable argument can be drawn from the loose, implicit character of these citations, since these Apostolic Fathers quote the protocanonical Scriptures in precisely the same manner. “(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
In fact nearly all Bibles, up until the 1830’s, in the US and other Protestant states continued to be printed with the Deutero-canonicals included. According to Ellen G. White: The Early Years Volume 1 - 1827-1862, page 92, paragraph 2, the famous “Big Bible” had the “apocryphal” books in it.
“The ‘large’ Bible Ellen called for after this vision in her home in Portland was, presumably, the ‘big Bible’ now in the White Estate vault with the names of Robert and Eunice Harmon stamped in gold on the spine, or back--a Bible eighteen inches long, eleven inches wide, four inches thick, and weighing 18.5 pounds. It was printed in Boston by Joseph Teal in the year 1822 and is illustrated with twenty-six beautiful steel engravings. Between the Old and the New Testaments a sheet bears the family record, filled in by James White. It also contains, between the Testaments, the books of the Old Testament apocrypha.”
In fact, for those of you who believe Ellen G White was a prophetess, the following quote may be of interest to you:
"All, all who keep the commandments of God, will enter in through the gates into the city and have right to the tree of life and ever be in the presence of that lovely Jesus whose countenance shines brighter than the sun at noon day. I then saw the word of God pure and unadulterated, and that we must answer for the way we received the truth proclaimed from that word. I saw that it had been a hammer to break the flinty heart in pieces, and a fire to consume the dross and tin, that the heart might be pure and holy. I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard book, that will judge us at the last day. I saw that heaven would be cheap enough, and that nothing was too dear to sacrifice for Jesus, and that we must give all to enter the kingdom."-- Manuscript 4, 1850 (emphasis added)
Conclusion
Let’s look at another verse that I heard several times in the Adventist Church…
- Pet 1:20 NASB) But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
(2 Pet 1:21 NASB) for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
So what does this Scripture mean, now that we understand that Scripture was given as a tool to be used by the church to assist in teaching us? Scripture was not given so that people can try to use their interpretations to break away or form new churches such as Luther, or even early Adventists. It was given so that the one church that Christ established, could use it as a resource and tool for teaching and edification.
It is clear, that both the Old and New Testaments put a high importance on learning the Scriptures, but even higher in both periods was the final and complete authority of the installed Church of God, whether Jewish High Priests, or the Bishops of the church, to teach and interpret the meaning of Scripture. This certainly doesn’t mean that they are not sinners, but it does mean that through them we have a special promise of protection against being led astray.