Well Will. This is long overdue. But I decided a few minutes ago that I should really actually get to answering your objections, since they're well thought out...and I kinda said I would (oopsies)!
Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Scriptures alone are the final rule of faith for the church. That is, while tradition is helpful and useful, everything must be brought before the bar of Scripture. If tradition helps us see better what Scripture says, or comports/is commanded by Scripture, great! If not, then not great.
For our readers, what I hope you'll see is definitive proof that a Protestant (a Reformed Baptist like me!) and a staunch Roman Catholic can consider each other brothers in Christ, and under the shadow of the Cross dialogue our differences. Now to be sure, we believe these differences are vital to our understanding of our Lord. So make no mistakes, we won't pull punches! But they will be punches done in brotherly love...like the "red one" punches. Except instead of "red one", sub in "bad theological claim". Hehehehehe. Troll.
Church Infallibility, Epistemology, Protestantism, and other big words I don't feel like typingWill begins his critique by refuting an argument from James White I don't really care for any way. White's argument is that the Roman Catholic is making a fallible choice to trust an infallible church. Since our choices are fallible, we can't have certainty regarding whether they were good choices. A Protestant is doing the same thing, except rather than trusting an infallible church, he or she is trusting an infallible canon. Will does a good job pointing out that one might have good reasons for making a choice to trust one authority over the other (or, with the other lest the whole Sola Ecclesia issue comes up).
Where I take issue is his argument for Church infallibility. He says "So do we Catholics have more reason to trust the Church's infallibility than Protestants do in trusting the Canon? Well yes, first, let us for the sake of this argument say that we do not know that the New Testament is infallible, let us purely treat the New Testament as a historical record of a man named Jesus, the activities of his earliest followers, and the theology taught by those followers. Jesus says in these documents things such as that he will establish a Church and that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18), that he will lead the Apostles to all truth (John 16:13), we have the Apostles teaching such things as the Church being the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) etc. Now, if we accept these as historically accurate and we accept the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus and His claims to divinity then we should also accept these statements to be true, regardless of whether or not we consider them infallible. So because of these points it is no stretch to say that when Jesus says He will lead the Apostles into all truth and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church then its pretty reasonable to accept this authority as infallible"
The verses that he provided do not prove at all that the Church's teaching authority is infallible. Matthew 16:18, especially given it's context as spiritual warfare ("whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"), indicates that the forces of darkness won't overcome God's church. The Gospel will never be lost, and the Church will never be overcome. It has nothing to do with the Magisterium. Additionally, that our Lord leads the Apostles into all truth guarantees their infallibility, which Protestants heartily affirm. 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the church "a pillar and a buttress" (get your giggles out...I know. I said pillar) of truth. That designates the church's responsibility--namely, it is to uphold truth. 1 Peter 2:8 calls those in Christ "a holy nation, a royal priesthood"--yet those designations don't mean that we always fulfill the obligations of holiness or priestliness.
Why Do Protestants Believe the books they have are from God?
Will agrees that Protestants have a rational basis to accept the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament. If Jesus believed it, we ought to as well. However, he takes issue in that we have no basis to believe the New Testament. His argument is twofold. For one, Protestants connect inspiration to apostolicity. However, we don't have all the writings of the Apostles. Ought we consider Paul's lost letter to Laodicea inspired as well? Ought we consider the writings Paul wrote to the Corinthians that we don't have inspired? Secondly, on what basis can a Protestant like me affirm apostolicity as a valid criteria? The criteria itself derives from the early church.
In response, I offer two replies. Protestants like Michael Kruger, John Piper, or me actually do consider the writings given to Laodicea inspired. That is, they were given by the breath of God, the Holy Spirit, operating through the personalities of the writers. For whatever reason, God decided to allow those letters to be lost. The reason I believe this is actually based off of John 16:13, which my Roman Catholic friend just quoted! Jesus promised that His Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. In Ephesians 4:11, the apostles are listed first on the list of gifts Jesus has given the church.
Secondly, what reason does a Protestant like me think we can affirm the inspiration of the New Testament? Michael Kruger points out in Canon Revisited that apostolicity wasn't the only criteria. For example, if a writer was connected to apostolic source material (as Luke and Matthew and Mark clearly were), and their teachings embodied the apostolic teaching, then they were inspired. So connection to apostolicity was important. That covers most of the canon right there except for Hebrews. So why do we considered Hebrews inspired? Community reception of a text is another criteria, not because community reception determined the canon (that's important!) Rather, if a community as a whole is hearing the Holy Spirit and seeing the glory of God in the text, then it's more likely that God is actually speaking in the text. So community reception works as a control against nuts who claim "HEY! I HEAR GOD! HE SOUNDS LIKE MUFASA!"
The Protestant doctrine of inspiration, then, is a theological doctrine which centers around the work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. The Holy Spirit opens our eyes to the objective glory of God present in the text. The recognition of the glory of God by a community, discerned over time gives credence to the idea that God's glory is objectively there. In other words, God's self-authenticating, authoritative glory is in the text, and that's what makes it canon. The church's role is purely epistemological; she is driven to know what the canon is through the witness of the Holy Spirit.
Will predicts this response, and says "its inconsistent, the early Church taught several doctrines which pretty much all Protestants consider to be heretical such as the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, Purgatory, devotion to Mary, Baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, etc. by the time the Church defined the canon of Scripture. Why would God guide the Church infallibly ONLY in deciding the Canon of Scripture and letting them fall into so many other errors in other places? If you think it was only at councils that these men were infallible then why did that stop?"
However, having now taken Historical Theology at Wheaton, I heartily disagree. The early church did not teach the real presence (in fact, I'm skeptical that Aristotelian metaphysics were guiding their reflection at all!), purgatory (not a trace in the second or third century-correct me if I'm wrong), devotion to Mary, etc. (For a good book on Baptism, see Thomas Schreiner's "Sign of the New Covenant in Christ"). We can talk about those if you really want. But I think that misses the point. The New Testament books are canon because they a) are apostolic, b) embody apostolic teaching/in some way commissioned by an apostle, and c) the glory of God is objective present in the text, and God the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to see it. The issue with the other doctrines is that we can't trace them back to Jesus (I knew you'd disagree Will--we'll chat :)).
2 Timothy 3:16-17
"[A]nd how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed (Greek θεόπνευστος, θεος = God, πνευστος = breath) and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete (αρτιος = complete, fitted, perfect), equipped for every good work."
A word on 2 Timothy 3:16-17, since Will responded to that in a different post. I'll link both of Will's posts at the end of this response. He represents the Protestant argument as follows: since the Scriptures are theopneustos (God-breathed), and since they are able to instruct us to salvation, we don't really need anything else. Will responds by saying that a) Paul would only be endorsing the Old Testament, since that's all Timothy would've had, b) the word Theopnuestos guarantees inerrancy, not sola scriptura, and c) Paul says that the Scriptures are "profitable" for teaching, not "wholly sufficient". Hence, the verse doesn't teach that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for the church.
I agree with b). In response to a), I point out the logic of the text. Knowing the Old Testament makes one wise for salvation through faith in Christ...i.e wise to know that what Paul (and by extension, the others per 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1, with Paul's correspondence with the other disciples) preaches is the saving word of God (Romans 10). So we extend it to the new testament like this: knowing the inerrant Old Testament makes one able to perceive that the teaching of the Apostles is the saving word of God through Christ (i.e makes one wise for salvation). Given that Paul believed salvation came through the word he and the other apostles preached, this almost certainly teaches the inerrancy of the whole New Testament revelation, as all of it embodies the saving word of Jesus Christ. Finally, by way of c), I half agree. The word "profitable" doesn't guarantee sola scriptura. It's what Paul says in the next clause: that (hina clause!) that man of God may be equipped for every good work. In other words, the Scriptures are profitable for training in righteousness in order that the man of God may be equipped for every good work. Paul believes that the Scriptures then are purposed to equip the man of God for every good work (i.e every good work of the entire Christian life). If so, the Bible in fact teaches it's own sufficiency. Thus we have a Biblical reason to accept the Bible's authority (it's not circular, btw, because there's good evidence to show Jesus rose from the dead and commissioned the apostles to speak and teach by His voice). The Scriptures are God-breathed that we may be equipped for every good work; thus, it is on the Scriptures alone that I stand. Since I see no reason to accept the church's infallibility, but a reason to accept the Scriptures' sufficiency, I remain a convinced Protestant. In classic Protestant fashion, I'll close with this:
"Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me. Amen."
Will's posts:
http://vassalofgod.blogspot.com/2015/03/2-timothy-315-17-and-sola-scriptura.html
http://vassalofgod.blogspot.com/2015/03/epistemology-and-canon-of-scripture.html
