|
Steve Ray is a nice guy. At least,
we’ve had some civil discourse in the past via the Internet.
He seems like an honest man who is convinced that the position he
now embraces—Roman Catholicism—is the true and proper
position to take. I start by acknowledging this, for I don’t
want anyone to think that I bear him any malice. I say this
because beyond my recognizing his personal civility, I find
little else in his written works that is commendable.
Steve Ray is the first person to tell you
he is not a scholar. He’s a layman who, as a Baptist,
decided he needed to convert to the Roman Catholic faith. He has
written a book, Crossing the Tiber, in which he defends
his choice. As soon as I obtained the book, I noted a number of glaring
deficiencies in the work: numerous errors in representing
Protestant theology, a complete failure to interact with any
level of Protestant apologetic response, etc. I informed Mr. Ray
of this by e-mail.
In response, Mr. Ray indicated that his
book simply developed out of a long letter to his parents
defending his choice to leave the Baptist faith and embrace the
Roman. He asserted that it was not intended as an in-depth
analysis of Protestant theology. This did not exactly satisfy my
concerns with how often it completely missed the point of the
debate, but I certainly accepted that this is how Mr. Ray views
his book.
It was with some real consternation,
therefore, that I read the March, 1997 issue of This Rock
magazine, published by Catholic Answers. I have long
criticized Catholic Answers for using a straw-man view of sola
scriptura in their publications—a practice that, despite
my criticisms, they continue unabated. But in this issue we find
an article titled, Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura written
by none other than Steve Ray. Now, an article in This Rock
cannot logically be considered an extension of a letter to Mr.
Ray’s parents. This is "new" material. The article
describes Mr. Ray as one who engages "in apologetics work in
Michigan." This is a work specifically designed to be used
to convince Protestants that their belief in sola scriptura
is in error. Hence, I expected a little higher standard in
something like this.
The Old Anti-Catholic Ploy
Unfortunately, though Mr. Ray does his best
to avoid inflammatory speech in personal conversation, the same
is not the case regarding his article in This Rock. While
avoiding a lot of the "shots" that mark the normal Catholic
Answers type material (see examples elsewhere on our web
page, including our response to a CA article on sola scriptura, as well as our rebuttal of a
recent
attack by James Akin), Mr. Ray
falls prey to the old "anti-Catholic" ploy. It’s a
false form of argumentation that Catholic Answers likes to
use with regularity (they are hardly the only ones to do so, of
course!). It’s an invalid attempt to claim the "high
ground" by calling anyone who disagrees with you and with
your position an "anti-Catholic," while referring to
yourself merely as an "apologist." Hence, you make your
opponent look like the aggressor, while you are the defender,
even when, in point of fact, you are attacking their
position (while failing to do a whole lot to actually define and
defend your own).
Mr. Ray begins by identifying Dave
Hunt’s organization as an "anti-Catholic"
organization. Later he makes the term "Fundamentalist"
a synonym for "anti-Catholic," and uses the phrase
"anti-Catholic" two more times, saying, "From the
perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians would
have been more noble-minded" and later, "Anti-Catholics
love to associate themselves with the Bereans. . . ." It is
quite honestly a shame to see Mr. Ray falling into the "us
vs. them" mentality so soon after his conversion (1994). I
truly doubt he refers to himself as an
"anti-Protestant," so why he would adopt such
terminology of others is difficult to understand, outside, that
is, of the polemics of Roman Catholic apologists. I would like to
call upon Mr. Ray (and all Roman Catholic apologists) to cease
and desist in their use of such a ploy.
Sola Scriptura: Misrepresented AGAIN
The main criticism that can be lodged
against Mr. Ray's work is quite simple: he does not accurately
portray (or possibly even understand) the Protestant position
that he has abandoned, and is now intent upon attacking. This is
a common problem in Roman Catholic apologetics: and the fact that
many Protestants don't know their faith very well, and hence
allow such misrepresentations to pass without comment or
correction, only exacerbates the situation.
Now, immediately, someone may say,
"Yes, well, both sides always say that about the
other." That's true. But there is a major difference: when
we say someone has misrepresented the Protestant position, we
demonstrate this by documenting what the Protestant position is,
and how, in context, the Roman Catholic writer should have known better. We have explained what sola
scriptura is over and over again in our apologetic writings
and books. Mr. Ray owns my books on Roman Catholicism. He could
have (if he wished) availed himself of many sources that
would have saved him from the error of misrepresentation and
straw-man argumentation. But he did not avail himself of those
sources. Why? Only he can answer that question.
We begin with the following presentation:
Sola scriptura, or the "Bible only," is a
Protestant doctrine invented in the fifteenth century. It
declares the Bible is the sole source of revelation and the
only and final judge in all matters of the Christian faith.
Martin Luther developed it as a reaction to the historic
teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Fathers of the
first centuries. Luther rejected the authority of the Church
and the apostolic tradition and so was left with sola
scriptura—the Bible alone.
It is hard to know where to begin. This is
substantially the same kind of presentation made in his book, Crossing
the Tiber. However, in that book, he accurately identified
the Reformation as taking place in the 16th, not the
15th, century. Since he claims Luther developed the
doctrine, and Luther did not even begin his theological work
until (at the earliest) 1510, how Ray can speak of the
"fifteenth century" is difficult to understand. But
this is just the beginning of the errors. Martin Luther didn't
invent the doctrine, of course. Even if Ray disputes every single
statement from the Fathers that I have provided in written
sources (see my chapter in Sola Scriptura: The
Protestant Position on the Bible, 1995, Soli Deo Gloria
Publishers, pp. 27-62), and rejects every Waldensian statement
concerning the doctrine, he would still have to deal with the
plain words of John Wyclif, who obviously believed in the
doctrine and put it into practice. Such would place the doctrine,
even under such an artificial construction as being the invention
of Wyclif, in the fourteenth century, more than a century
before Luther. If Mr. Ray encountered a Protestant who, in
discussing Roman Catholic dogmatic formulations, misidentified
the source of such formulations, and misplaced the dates by
centuries, would he not have reason to question the validity of
that person's conclusions?
But far more damaging is the simple fact
that Mr. Ray does not know what sola scriptura is. Sola
scriptura does not say the Bible is the "sole source of
revelation." Such is a basic, fundamental mistake on the
level of saying, "The Immaculate Conception means Mary
didn't need a Savior." Such would indicate that the person
making the statement has never seriously interacted with any
apologetic defense of the Immaculate Conception. In the same way,
Mr. Ray's writings show a consistent pattern as well: he
has not interacted with any serious Protestant apologetics works,
either. Or, if he has, he gives no evidence of it.
Sola scriptura says the Scriptures
are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. It does not
deny the existence of "general revelation" in nature
(hence the error of saying the "sole source of
revelation"). It is interesting to note, however, that Mr.
Ray, in his zeal for the Roman position, ends up taking the more
conservative, traditional partim-partim viewpoint of
tradition and revelation, for while many modern Roman Catholic
theologians are moving toward abandoning the
"two-source" view of revelation, Mr. Ray states his
adherence to it plainly a number of times in his article (we
shall note them in passing). Mr. Ray is a former Baptist. Hence,
he might want to be familiar with what the Baptists in 1689
placed in their Confession of Faith:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary
for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either
expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy
Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added,
whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of
men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of
the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving
understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and
that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of
God, and government of the Church, common to human actions
and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of
nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general
rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
The sufficiency of Scripture is clearly
asserted, but it is a sufficiency carefully defined. No one
claims the Bible is an omnipedia of all knowledge. Nor does
anyone claim the Bible can tell you, specifically, what color
fabric to place upon the pews of your new church building. But
all things that are "necessary" for God's "own
glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set
down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture." How like
the words of Augustine:
What more shall I teach you than what we read in the
apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine,
lest we dare to be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should
not teach you anything else except to expound to you the
words of the Teacher. (De bono viduitatis, 2)
Note well the words of Augustine: he says
that the Scriptures fix "the rule for our doctrine."
The Latin of the passage reads, "Scriptura nostrę
doctrinę regulam figit." Protestants say the Scriptures
are the sole infallible regula fidei, the rule of faith.
It seems Augustine believed the same.
Now before too many of our Roman Catholic
readers blow a gasket, I well know that Augustine asserted the
Church has a role in preserving the truth, and especially when
Augustine had to struggle against Donatism (and the influence of
Cyprian), he appealed to "tradition." Yet, he did not appeal to tradition as Rome now teaches it,
and did not deny sola scriptura so as to present a
doctrine of sola ecclesia. Note his own words:
You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory
that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures
against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one
dares to speak who would in any way be considered a
Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this
did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the
believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time
would come when we would not have anything to touch but would
have something to read (In Epistolam Johannis tractus,
2).
The issue is not, and never has been, the
validity of "tradition" as a subordinate
authority. I above cited from the 1689 Baptist Confession of
Faith. It is a "subordinate standard," a
"tradition" if you wish, that gives expression to
certain aspects of divine truth. But it is not revelational, nor
is it infallible. It is subordinate to Scripture, and
liable to correction on the basis thereof. The Lord Jesus gave us
the example in Matthew 15: we are to subordinate all
traditions, even those that men claim are "divine" in
origin, to the ultimate authority of Scripture. In this we
agree with Basil of Caesarea:
The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is
said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the
Scriptures but reject that which is foreign. (Moralia,
72:1)
And likewise with Cyril of Jerusalem:
In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith,
not the least part may be handed on without the Holy
Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever
arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give
ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the
proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which
we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the
Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures 4:17)
I note in passing that such citations,
likewise, refute Mr. Ray's assertion that Luther was rejecting
the "teachings of the Fathers of the first centuries."
In reality, it is Mr. Ray who has abandoned them in his embracing
of doctrines such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary and the
Immaculate Conception.
The main element of Mr. Ray's
misrepresentation of sola scriptura can be seen in just
this: the doctrine speaks of a rule of faith that exists.
What do I mean by this? One will search high and low for any
reference in any standard Protestant confession of faith that
says, "There has never been a time when God's Word was
proclaimed and transmitted orally." You will never find
anyone saying, "During times of enscripturation—that
is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura
was operational." Protestants do not assert that sola
scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How
could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at
that very time coming into being? One must have an existing
rule of faith to say it is "sufficient." It is a canard
to point to times of revelation and say, "See, sola
scriptura doesn't work there!" Of course it doesn't. Who
said it did?
But immediately the Roman Catholic
apologist makes a fatal logical error: "Well, if there was a
time when God's Word was orally transmitted, why can't it be
today?" Such assumes the very thing Rome won't ever dare
step out and prove: that her self-proclaimed
"traditions" are in fact, inspired revelation that has
existed since the days of the Apostles. Indeed, many Roman
apologists deny that tradition is in fact qeo,pneustoj:
God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Some of
"Tradition" may be inspired (i.e., Scripture), but many
are uncomfortable having to defend the idea that "oral
tradition" is in fact revelation and is inspired. If the
Roman apologist wishes to say, "Well, there was a time when
God-breathed revelation was orally transmitted prior to the
enscripturization of that revelation," that's fine. But to
go beyond this statement to, "And, that situation continues
today, so that our traditions are equal with Scripture in
authority" is to leap out of the realm of both scriptural
teaching and historical reality. It is a self-evident fact that a
doctrine such as the Bodily Assumption of Mary has no historical
connection to the Apostles themselves. To make it an inspired
"tradition" is to say revelation is still being given
(a position even Rome denies).
Sola scriptura speaks to the Church
as she exists in her normative state. Times of revelation are not
normative. They are now passed. So how does the Church have sure
access to the truths of God today? By reference to nebulous,
a-historical traditions, or to the sure and unchanging Word of
God in the Scriptures? Sola scriptura says the Church
always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the Church
isn't that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of
revelation from Her Lord, and that she finds in Scripture, not in
"traditions" that are uncertain. [For more information
on this topic, see The Roman Catholic Controversy, pp.
55-101.]
The Bereans and sola scriptura
Mr. Ray's article has a text block that
reads as follows:
The Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of
the Apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as
an "extension" of the Torah.
The article attempts to undermine the use
of Acts 17:11 as a "proof-text" for sola scriptura
by arguing that in point of fact the Bereans did not operate on a
basis consistent with Protestant claims regarding the supremacy
of Scripture. Mr. Ray states that the Catholic response to this
passage has often been "mediocre." But, he claims,
"Not only can the text be explained easily by Catholics, but
it is actually a strong argument against sola scriptura and
a convincing defense of the teaching of the Catholic
Church." Such is a pretty tall claim! Does Mr. Ray succeed
in his task? Let's start by looking at the passage in question.
(Acts 17:10-12) The brethren immediately sent Paul and
Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they
went into the synagogue of the Jews. [11] Now these
were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they
received the word with great eagerness, examining the
Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
[12] Therefore many of them believed, along with a number
of prominent Greek women and men.
One of the key phrases is "these were
more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica," so Ray goes
back and looks at what had happened there:
(Acts 17:1-9) Now when they had traveled through
Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where
there was a synagogue of the Jews. [2] And according
to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths
reasoned with them from the Scriptures, [3] explaining
and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise
again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom
I am proclaiming to you is the Christ." [4] And
some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along
with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of
the leading women. [5] But the Jews, becoming jealous
and taking along some wicked men from the market place,
formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the
house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the
people. [6] When they did not find them, they began
dragging Jason and some brethren before the city
authorities, shouting, "These men who have upset the
world have come here also; [7] and Jason has welcomed
them, and they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar,
saying that there is another king, Jesus." [8] They
stirred up the crowd and the city authorities who heard these
things. [9] And when they had received a pledge from
Jason and the others, they released them.
Now, before we look at Mr. Ray's ingenious
argument, let's examine the passage and see what Luke has to tell
us. We see that Paul, as was his custom, went into the synagogue
as the first missions "starting point" upon arriving in
Thessalonica. This was his custom everywhere he went, for he
would find there a place where the Scriptures were known and
hence a common ground could be established. For three weeks he
reasoned with them from the Scriptures, using the Old Testament
(as we call it today) to demonstrate the truth about the Messiah.
Paul met with some success, for some Jews, as well as
"God-fearing Greeks" and a number of the leading women
believed the message. The "God-fearing Greeks" refers
to those who, while not completing the proselytization process,
attended the synagogue and listened to the reading of the
Scriptures. Nothing is said about the character of the dialogues
outside of Paul's reliance upon the Scriptures as his source of
teaching. We are told, however, that as soon as people began to
follow Paul's teachings, the Jews became jealous. We are not told
that they were able to refute Paul, or anything else. Instead,
jealousy was their motive. While they had not been able to get
the God-fearers to convert, Paul succeeded in convincing them of
the truths of the gospel and eliciting from them their belief and
obedience.
What follows is not overly relevant to our
inquiry here, aside from the fact that an uproar ensues, and Paul
and Silas are forced out of town, leading them to Berea. In
contrast with the jealous Jews who had stirred up trouble, Luke
tells us that those in Berea were more "noble-minded."
Rather than stirring up trouble, they eagerly listened to the
message of Paul and Silas. At this point, however, we need to
look closely at the text. The term "noble minded" is euvgene,steroi, which is the adjectival
comparative form. Luke is making a contrast between the attitude
of the Thessalonians and that of the Bereans. As F.F. Bruce
points out in his commentary on Acts, the term originally
referred to nobility, but eventually came to mean "open
minded." How did they show their open-mindedness? They did
so by eagerly receiving the message of the Apostles, daily
examining the Scriptures to see if what they were receiving was
in accordance with God's truth. The Greek text indicates that
these were not two different activities: the receiving of the
message and the searching of the Scriptures on a daily basis are one
action in Luke's description. The "daily examining the
Scriptures" is a description of the means by which
the Bereans received the word of the Apostles. A.T. Robertson
points out that the term "searching" as in
"searching the Scriptures" (avnakri,nontej) means "to
sift up and down, make careful and exact research as in legal
precesses as in Ac 4:9; 12:19, etc.).
Now, the reason this passage is relevant is
quite clear: here you have individuals comparing the Apostolic
message against the Scriptures. What is the ultimate source of
authority for the Bereans? Plainly, it is the Scripture. And just
as obviously, the Apostles have no problem at all with this
procedure. Hence the necessity of addressing this passage on the
part of Mr. Ray.
Getting Around Acts 17:11
So how does Mr. Ray get around this
passage? He begins by asserting that the Bereans actually condemn
the position of sola scriptura! How? Let's see. He begins
by stating, upon citing Acts 17:1-9, " The Thessalonians rejected Paul and his
message, and, after denouncing him, they became jealous that
others believed." Yet, where does the text say this? The
text says nothing about rejecting Paul's message. Luke says,
"But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked
men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an
uproar." The motivation of the Jew's action is plainly
jealousy, nothing more. Of course they did not embrace the
message: if they had, they would not have been jealous! Why make
a point of this? Note Mr. Ray's own words:
Why? "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them
from the Scriptures in the synagogue, as was his
custom." They did not revile Paul the first week or the
second; rather, they listened and discussed. But ultimately
they rejected what he had to say. They compared Paul's
message to the Old Testament and decided that Paul was wrong.
Where does Luke speak of their comparing
Paul's message with the Old Testament and concluding he was
wrong? Luke gives only one reason for their rejection: jealousy.
This was nothing new. This is not the first time Paul encountered
the jealousy of the Jews. I certainly don't get the idea that
Paul was defeated in public debate on the issue of the witness of
the Old Testament to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Why is Mr. Ray
intent upon reading into the action of the Thessalonians this
idea of comparing the message of Paul to the Scriptures and
finding it wanting? Because it is his position that the Thessalonians
were actually believers in sola scriptura, while the
Bereans were not! How does he come to this tremendously
surprising conclusion? First, he attempts to draw a distinction
between the Thessalonians and the Bereans as to their make-up:
When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the
doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that
those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic
Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within
Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred.
Everyone realizes that the Bereans were not
Christians when Paul and Silas first arrived. Then again, neither
were the Thessalonians. In fact, the make-up of the two
communities was the same: Hellenistic Jews, with God-fearers also
in the congregation in the synagogue. There is no meaningful
difference in the ethnic make up of the synagogue in Thessalonica
and the one in Berea. If there was no doctrine of sola
scriptura in Berea, nor was there one in Thessalonica. He
must be consistent in using the same standards for both, for he
certainly makes no attempt at substantiating his implicit
assertion that there was some difference between the two groups.
Now, Mr. Ray goes on to expand upon his
claim about the Jews:
Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the
people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral
tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an
authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the
"seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The
Jews had no reason to accept Paul's teaching as
"divinely inspired," since they had just met him.
When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development
of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be
verified from the Torah.
Mr. Ray's understanding of Matthew 23 goes
far beyond anything that particular passage can substantiate. The
seat of Moses was simply the seat upon which a person sat to read
the Scriptures in the synagogue. But he is right that the Jews
had a great body of tradition: and the Lord Jesus taught us to
subjugate those traditions to the Scriptures in Matthew 15:1-9,
including those that the Jews themselves claimed were
"divine" in origin. Which is exactly why the Bereans
are commended: they are doing what they should have done
when faced with a new message. They are testing that message for
consistency against the ultimate rule of faith for God's people:
the Scriptures. At this point, however, Mr. Ray utterly departs
from the text and says:
If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola
scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the
Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue,
yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new
teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that
Paul's word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not
completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How
could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like
a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the
judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that he?
This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts
[Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).
One's breath is taken away by the
tremendous leap taken here. Where does Luke say a word
about the Thessalonian Jews carefully examining Paul's teaching
on the basis of sola scriptura and, as a result, rejecting
it? Of course, he says nothing of the sort. Instead, he says that
Paul operated on the basis of the supremacy of Scripture in
preaching to the Thessalonians, and as a result, he was
successful in convincing some of the truthfulness of his message.
But others, acting out of jealousy, started a riot.
Nothing is said at all about their taking three weeks to
deliberate and come to some kind of scriptural conclusion! This
is purely wishful thinking on Mr. Ray's part. Sadly, he then
attempts to provide some kind of basis for this tremendous leap
by citing Kistemaker's work on Acts. Yet, if one reads the source
cited, one finds the exact opposite of Ray's own assertions:
Paul follows the example set by Jesus, who opened the
Scriptures for the two men on the way to Emmaus and for the
disciples in the upper room. Jesus showed them from the Law,
the Prophets, and the Psalms that the Christ had to suffer
and rise from the dead (Luke 24:25-27, 44-46). The term exp1aining
comes from the Greek verb meaning "to open."
Paul opens the Word and sets the explanation of the messianic
prophecies before his listeners. By appealing to the
Scriptures, he has a common basis to prove that the Messiah
has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Paul demonstrates that the Christ had to suffer,
die, and rise from the grave. Luke, in his Gospel and Acts,
also clearly illustrates that Jesus' life, death, and
resurrection are governed by divine necessity (refer, e.g.,
to Luke 2:49; 4:43; 13:33; 24:26; Acts 3:21). "It is
Luke's underlying concern not to depict Jesus' death as the
tragic failure of a prophet but to present the death and
resurrection of Jesus as necessary saving acts of God."
In his presentations, Paul discusses three facts: the
Christ had to suffer, he had to rise from the dead, and he is
Jesus proclaimed by Paul. The Jews objected to the teaching
that Christ died on a cross, because to them a criminal
hanging on a tree (cross) was under God's curse (Deut. 21:23;
Gal. 3:13). The doctrine of the resurrection is the recurring
theme the apostles proclaim wherever they speak (see 2:24;
32; 13:30, 33, 34, 17:31). And identifying Jesus with the
Messiah is Paul's personal objective ever since his
conversion on the Damascus road (refer to 9:22). (Kistemaker,
pp. 613-614).
There is certainly nothing supportive of
Mr. Ray's thesis in these words from Kistemaker. In fact, just
the opposite is true. Kistemaker is not even here speaking
specifically of the Thessalonian Jews, but of the Jews Paul
encountered in his ministry in general. The reason Mr. Ray does
not provide a reference to a commentary speaking of the
Thessalonians coming to a reasoned, considered conclusion on the
basis of an examination of the Scripture is simply this: the text
doesn't even hint at such an idea. Yet, despite this, Mr. Ray
says,
We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as
adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian
Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded
that Paul's new teaching was "unbiblical."
It is simply amazing that a person can go
from the jealousy of the Jews to the idea that they were
crypto-Protestants practicing sola scriptura and therefore
missing the truth of Paul's message! We are given no references
to scholarly sources here, either, for the same reason: such a
conclusion has no connection with the text.
But remember that Mr. Ray says the Bereans
actually denied sola scriptura. How is this? Let's
listen:
The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola
scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul's new
oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral
teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before
accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even
Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined
the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were
noble-minded precisely because they "received the word
with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended
primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded
willingness to listen was the primary reason they are
referred to as noble-minded-not that they searched the
Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it
clear that they were "noble-minded" not for
studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than
did the Thessalonians with an open mind and generous courtesy
(see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles"
in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans,
1981], 5:280).
Does a "perusal" of grammars and
commentaries give us such an indication? Let's start with one
that Mr. Ray has already cited, that being the commentary of Kistemaker:
Noble-mindedness. Luke compares the worshipers at
the Berean synagogue with those at Thessalonica and praises
the Bereans. Paul develops a close and loving relationship
with the Thessalonians (see I Thess. 2:11); nevertheless, in
respect to noble-mindedness the Bereans excel. They are more
open to the truth of God's Word than the people of
Thessalonica are.
The reason for the openness of the Bereans lies in their
receptivity to and love for God's Word. For them, the
Scriptures are much more than a written scroll or book that
conveys a divine message. They use the Old Testament as the
touchstone of truth, so that when Paul proclaims the gospel
they immediately go to God's written Word for verification.
They do so, Luke adds, with great eagerness. Note well, the
adjective great indicates that they treasure the Word
of God. Luke ascribes the same diligence to the Bereans as
Peter does to the Old Testament prophets, who intently and
diligently searched the Word and inquired into its meaning (I
Peter 1:10). The Bereans open the Scriptures and with ready
minds learn that Jesus has fulfilled the messianic
prophecies.
Day by day, the Bereans examine the Scriptures to see
whether the teachings of Paul and Silas accord with God's
written Word. They do so not from unbelief and doubt but from
honest analysis and eagerness to learn the message of God's
revelation. Although Luke fails to mention that God opened
the hearts of the Bereans (compare 16:14), in verse 12 he
records that "many of the Jews" believe the gospel.
These people believe because they know God's Word. The
situation in Berea differs from that in Thessalonica, where
"some of the Jews were persuaded" (v.4).
How about Richard Longenecker in the Expositor's
Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), p. 471?
Luke gave the Jews at Berea undying fame by characterizing
them as being "more noble" (eugenesteroi)
than the Thessalonian Jews because they tested the truth of
Paul's message by the touchstone of Scripture rather than
judging it by political and cultural considerations. So they
examined the Scriptures daily (kath hemeran) to see
whether what Paul proclaimed was really true, and many
believed.
And we note the words of Ivor Powell in The
Amazing Acts (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1987), pp.
295-296:
When the same speaker ministered in the next synagogue,
the listeners were not swept off their feet by eloquent
oratory; they searched the Scriptures "ever day to see
if what Paul said was true." (The New International
Version). Apparently, they had more faith in the Word of
God than in the man who expounded it. When Paul cited certain
prophetical utterances, the listeners unrolled their scrolls
to see if the prophets had indeed made such predictions. Luke
said the people in Berea were "more noble" than the
Jews in Thessalonica, and that probably meant they were more
educated. Farrar said, "Instead of angrily rejecting
this new Gospel, they daily and diligently searched the
Scriptures to judge Paul's arguments and references by the
word and the testimony—they were more generous, more
simple, more sincere and truth-loving."
And what of the very commentary Mr. Ray
cites, that of I. Howard Marshall? On page 280 we read:
The account of Paul's reception at Beroea is the classical
description of a more well-disposed and open-minded (RSV more
noble) response by the Jews to the gospel. They were
zealous to hear what Paul had to say, and so they met with
him daily (and not merely on the sabbath). Nor did
they accept what he said thoughtlessly and uncritically, but
they themselves examined the Scriptures to see whether the
case which Paul developed from them (as in 17:2ff) was sound.
Here was no mere emotional response to the gospel, but one
based on intellectual conviction.
And A.T. Robertson commented:
Examining the Scriptures daily
(kaqV h`meran anakrinontej taj grafaj). Paul expounded the Scriptures daily as in
Thessalonica, but the Beroeans, instead of resenting his new
interpretation, examined (anakrinw means to sift up and down,
make careful and exact research as in legal processes as in
Ac 4:9; 12:19, etc.) the Scriptures for themselves. In
Scotland people have the Bible open on the preacher as he
expounds the passage, a fine habit worth imitating. Whether
these things were so (ei ecoi
tauta o`utwj). Literally, "if these things had it
thus." The present optative in the indirect question
represents an original present indicative as in Lu 1:29
(Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1043f.). This use of ei with the optative may be looked at as the condition of
the fourth class (undetermined with less likelihood of
determination) as in Ac 17:27; 20:16; 24:19; 27:12
(Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). The Beroeans were
eagerly interested in the new message of Paul and Silas but
they wanted to see it for themselves. What a noble attitude.
Paul's preaching made Bible students of them. The duty of
private interpretation is thus made plain (Hovey).
Why do all these commentators say the same
thing? Because the text is plain beyond dispute, and Mr. Ray is
simply desperate to avoid the plain meaning of the text. This
error is then compounded by his errant belief that sola
scriptura is somehow contradicted by the acceptance of
"new revelation," as if sola scriptura is meant
to be applied during times of revelation rather than being a
normative rule for the Church. He writes,
The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the
Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God
from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they
already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the
Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel
and not a "tradition," it is clear that the Bereans
were accepting new revelation that was not contained
in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral
teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to
Scripture, in addition to, and as an "extension"
of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian
community's reception of Paul's epistles as divinely inspired
Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges
Paul's writings as equal to the "other Scriptures,"
which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).
In reality, the Bereans accepted the
message of Christ because it was consistent with the Old
Testament revelation. Even introducing "canon" issues
here is to continue the tremendous misuse of this passage already
begun in attempting to turn the Thessalonians into
crypto-Protestants and the Bereans into crypto-Catholics. And we
note in passing (as Wayne Grudem notes in his Systematic
Theology, pp. 84-85) that 2 Peter 3:16 refers to writings,
not to vague and undefinable "oral traditions."
From the perspective of anti-Catholics, the Thessalonians
would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck
to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any
additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the
mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia,
around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written
after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically
mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.
Mr. Ray would do well to deal with the
criticism of Jamnia found in Beckwith's fine work, The Old
Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1985). But in any case, we have here yet another
straw-man, an argument based upon either misrepresentation or
ignorance of the issues at hand. The Thessalonians were not noble
minded because they rejected the message preached out of
jealousy. The Bereans were noble minded because they listened
to the message and tested it by Scripture. Any attempt to read
into the passage some concept of "extra-biblical oral
tradition" or to read out of the passage the plain
supremacy of Scripture, is yet another example of how Roman
Catholic apologists are at a real loss when it comes to engaging
in serious exegesis of the Scriptures.
But in the midst of this misrepresentation,
Mr. Ray stumbles upon a truth without, seemingly, knowing it.
Sensing that he has done nothing to escape the simple fact that
the Bereans tested the claimed apostolic message for
consistency by Scripture and without an infallible
magisterium, he attempts to explain their action:
Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they
were the sole source of revelation and authority? No,
but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew-to
confirm additional revelation. They would not submit
blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but,
once they accepted the credibility of Paul's teaching as the
oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and
recognized its binding authority.
Note the phrase, "to confirm
additional revelation." Here you have individuals going directly
to Scripture and testing a message for consistency. Yet,
when I do the very same thing with Roman theology, I'm
told I'm engaging in "private interpretation" and that
I am endangering my soul. For all his attempts, Mr. Ray has
utterly failed to overthrow the plain teaching of the passage:
the Bereans did not seek for some "oral tradition" nor
an "infallible magisterium." They allowed the
Scriptures to function just as the Baptist Confession of Faith
says they should. Mr. Ray won't admit it, but one thing is
plain as day: the Bereans did not believe in sola ecclesia
as he does: they did not look for an infallible Church with an
infallible magisterium to tell them what was, and what was not,
Scripture and truth. [Indeed, we note with some level of irony
that from the Roman Catholic position, an infallible definition
of the canon was still 1500 years in the future!]
Finally, Mr. Ray follows the old line of
misusing 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
After that, like the converts who believed in
Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old
Testament equally as God's word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16).
Paul nowhere speaks of "apostolic
Tradition" in his writings. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul
speaks of his preaching the gospel to the Thessalonians orally
and by letter, nothing more. It is a tremendous stretch to assert
that we have here a basis for some nebulous, ever-changing
"oral tradition" that eventually gives the basis for
such doctrines as papal infallibility and the Bodily Assumption
of Mary.
In Conclusion
After a decade of trying, I still await a serious
interaction in writing from a Roman Catholic apologist on the
doctrine of sola scriptura that does not engage in the
most egregious forms of misrepresentation and argument-begging.
After a while, one begins to wonder why it is that the doctrine
cannot be discussed openly and honestly. Why do we continuously
have to point out basic error after basic error as we have above?
If Rome's claims are so strong and so overwhelming (certainly a
claim Rome's defenders make all the time), why the constant
misrepresentation? If we had to continuously misrepresent Rome's
doctrines, would we not, by so doing, be demonstrating that we do
not have solid answers to her claims?
I do hope that Mr. Ray has misrepresented
his former faith purely out of ignorance, not out of malice. And
if that is the case, and I truly hope it is, I hope he will
reconsider his pledge of allegiance to an authoritarian system
that has led him so far from the truths of the Scriptures.
|
