The Greatest Stumbling Block

Robert M. Zins

It may well be impossible to gain an audience with the Roman Catholic community as long as there remains such a wide and deep chasm separating evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics on the question of authority. It appears to me that any head way in understanding the gospel must be preceded by progress in comprehending authority.

The entire query of, “What is the gospel?” seems to be blocked by the issue of who should have the last say in matters of spiritual truth. It comes down to this. Roman Catholics trust their leaders to interpret the Bible correctly. It is not that Roman Catholics do not believe the Bible is the Word of God. They most certainly do believe it. The concern is that they do not believe the Bible is the only Word of God and they do not trust the interpretation of the Bible to anyone else but their leaders.

To understand the magnitude of this quandary let me set forth the contrast. I do not know of one confessing evangelical Christian who does not have an implicit or explicit confidence in his or her own ability to understand the Bible insofar as the gospel is concerned. It is virtually unanimous among Christians that they can trust their reading of the Bible and are not subject to an outside interpreter with respect to basic Christian doctrine and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Conversely, I have never interacted with a Roman Catholic who is not fully convinced that only the Roman Catholic Church has the right to interpret the Bible and provide them with a correct understanding of the gospel. In line with this is an implicit and explicit trust in the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church.

Although Roman Catholic defenders do not like the term, it is fair to categorize Roman Catholic faith as centering upon Sola Ecclesia [the church alone]. By this I mean that followers of the Roman Catholic religion believe inherently that their leaders are possessed with the authority to rightly divide the Word of God. This kind of confidence is arrived at through a trust in the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Rome believes that Jesus left not only His infallible Word but also His infallible Church to rightly interpret and apply His Word. At the end of the day, Rome claims to have determined the canon of the text [see Council of Trent where 6 books were added to the O.T. canon] and the right interpretation of the Text. All this is done under the assumption that God would never have left His Word to His people without an infallible interpreter. This is said to protect the Word from wild and fanciful interpretations and secure the Church from heretics. Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformers were considered heretical by Rome because they denied Rome’s interpretation of the Bible.

Confessing evangelical Christians, however, view the Protestant Reformation altogether differently. Citing the Reformer’s reliance upon the Word of God to test the Roman Catholic interpretations, modern confessing evangelical Christians cannot imagine appealing to any other source of authority other than their Bibles to settle matters of doctrinal interpretation and application. Evangelicals mistrust the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Bible on a wide range of critical doctrinal matters. With the understanding that the Bible is both materially sufficient [there is no other Word of God] and formally sufficient [under the guidance of the Holy Spirit all that is necessary for salvation and sanctification is fully understandable to every Christian] evangelicals are not willing to relinquish their understanding of the Bible to Rome or any other self proclaimed religious authority for that matter. This position has historically been called Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone for faith and practice. This impasse begins right from the start of things. Rome has convinced herself that the Church is over the Bible. Evangelical Christians are convinced that the Bible is over the Church. The two positions are unable to coexist.

This is the stumbling block for the Roman Catholic community. Many Roman Catholics do not appeal to Scripture in defense of their beliefs for the most part. Rather, they go on the offensive from another angle. They instead appeal to logic. They cannot imagine granting to each and every person, who claims to be a Christian, the right to a private interpretation of the Bible. Pointing out the hundreds of so-called Christian communities that argue and fight over major and minor aspects of biblical interpretation, Roman Catholics throw their hands up in disgust. Roman Catholics are quick to point out the proliferation of cults who rely upon their leaders and their peculiar interpretations of the Bible. They ask, “Are not all of these Sola Scriptura people?”

A recent interaction with a Roman Catholic exposes the incredulity with which the so-called evangelical Christian is viewed by Roman Catholics. I was informed in an e-mail that a particular Roman Catholic had just finished an internet discussion with a Lutheran Pastor who was convinced that a person could lose his or her salvation. He cited Bible passage after Bible passage and leaned upon his own interpretation of the text to arrive at his conclusions. He was a Sola Scriptura man. He proved his point from the text. At the same time this Roman Catholic was dealing with a Presbyterian Pastor who did not believe that a true Christian could ever lose his or her salvation. He also was a Sola Scriptura man and proved his position from the text. Her question for me was, “Which one is right?” How can we possibly know who to trust? This person could have thrown into the mix baptism, election, sacraments, the regulative principle of the law, long hair on men and short hair on women, not to mention church discipline and many other interpretation/application differences among the Sola Scriptura crowd.

The point is well taken. Who can be trusted with the right interpretation of the Bible?

This is the stumbling block. So, where do we begin?

The canon of the Text

It is the Roman Catholic contention that she has given the Bible to the world. By this she means that through her ecumenical councils she has authoritatively determined which books belong in the canon of the Text. This kind of authority is assumed as valid within the rank and file of Roman Catholicism. It is inferred from this that the authority which determines the extent of the Bible must have the same authority to determine the meaning of the Bible. Hence, Rome reserves for herself not only the establishment of the canon but the meaning of the Text as well. So, when it comes to what the Bible teaches on eternal security or the loss of ones salvation, Rome has the last word. The Lutheran Pastor and Presbyterian Pastor are relieved of conflict once Rome has spoken. This is the position of Rome. But is it credible?

There are some very good reasons to reject these Roman Catholic claims. The first and certainly not the least of which is a small comment made by the Apostle Paul in the 3rd chapter of his letter to the Christians at Rome:

3:1 “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,

"That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words,
And mightest prevail when Thou art judged."
Rom 3:1-4 NASB

Long before Christianity came upon the scene the nation of Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God. By this is meant the inspired Word of God as found in the canon of the Old Testament. The Jewish canon consists of 22 books which, if separated apart as they are in our modern Bibles, equal 39 individual books. This canon of the Jewish Text yet remains and is the same canon recognized by Jesus and his Apostles.

There is no extant evidence that a council was formed to determine which books of the Old Testament constitute the inspired Word of God. This is very important. No formal council of wise men or Jewish leaders came together to determine the canon of the text. The canon was recognized over a period of time by the people of God.

This observation of history is critical in sorting through the Roman Catholic logic. The reality is that the nation of Israel was not infallible and never claimed to be. Yet, God used this painfully fallible people to establish and preserve the entire canon of the Old Testament. Even Rome does not grant infallibility to the nation of Israel. My point is that if God can give to His very fallible nation an infallible Word preserved in writing, why should it be demanded that He do something different in preserving the New Testament? The point is that it is absolutely unnecessary to stipulate an infallible Church to produce an infallible Word. In the case of the Old Testament it is just the opposite. We find God’s infallible Word in the midst of a most visible and excruciatingly imperfect nation.

The Roman Catholic claim that there must be an infallible Church in order to determine the very books of the Bible, lest other false books slip into the canon, is erroneous. God was able to entrust His oracles to a fallible nation and the infallibility of the Old Testament remains a part of the Bible to this day. He certainly is able to preserve an infallible New Testament in the midst of a very fallible Church. Added to this is the historical observation that even Rome did not attempt to classify canonicity by decree until the Council of Trent in the middle 1500s. There is no claim of an infallible decree from an infallible church determining the extent of an infallible canon until Rome’s ill fated attempt at the Council of Trent 1500 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What constituted the Word of God for Christians up to this time? Surely they had confidence that they were reading, studying and living their life by the Word of God. Witness Paul’s approval of the Christians at Thessalonica during his own ministry.

13 “And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” 1 Thess 2:13-14 NASB

Most Christians who give it some thought would have to say that there is an element of reliance upon the Body of Christ throughout the centuries when it comes to accepting the canon of the Text as we have it today. If not, then it could be argued that every man has the right to determine his or her own canon of the Text. But, it is one thing to examine the recognition of the books accepted by the early Church as canonical and another to stand in judgment upon the early Church with regard to books accepted into the canon. It is for this reason that the historical Body of Christ should serve as a check upon those who may wish to reduce the books in the canon or maybe even add to them. Evidently, no lesser light than Luther gave considerable thought to eradicating the book of James from the New Testament. He was persuaded not to pursue such a venture. The persuasion came from both history [most everyone else in history accepted James] and from his fellow contemporaries who also gave weight to the historical evidence for James being included into the canon. But, if all Luther had to go on was the decree of the council of Trent to include James, he most likely would have disregarded James as evangelicals of our day disregard the inclusion of Tobit or Judith into the canon of the text.

For the purposes of this article let me say that the emergence of the canon of the New Testament was providential, supernatural and historical. The key word in the process of bringing together and ending the canon of the Text is the word ‘recognition.’ The Bible records the ‘recognition’ of those who received Jesus and His words as having a divine origin. Why did some accept Jesus as Messiah and trust His words? The answer, given in Scripture, is due to the convicting and convincing work of Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit brings conviction and convincing that the words of Jesus are, in fact, the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is the active member of the Triune God bearing witness that the Word of God has been spoken by the prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus and His Apostles of the New Testament era. This supernaturally induced, Holy Spirit generated, recognition and acceptance of God’s Word is evidenced in Scripture. Lydia is a good illustration of the Holy Spirit’s conviction and convincing. Christians of all ages experience the same.

“And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. 14 And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” Acts 16:13-15 NASB

The only thing separating those who have heard the gospel and said “no” and those who have said “yes” is the convincing of the Holy Spirit. Nothing has changed. The same Holy Spirit that convicted and convinced Lydia and those at Thessalonica that Paul was speaking the Word of God still works today. This cannot be stated strongly enough. I would add that even those claiming infallibility for the Roman Catholic Church are really claiming supernatural imbuement by the Holy Spirit at the selection committee level. Even a Roman Catholic council would not dare go it alone when claiming authority to recognize what books belong in the Bible. What I am saying is that each and every Christian becomes convinced that the Bible is complete and completely the Word of God through convincing and conviction of the Holy Spirit. This same kind of convicting and convincing is historically observable in the life of the early Christians and in the very pages of Scripture itself which tells us their story. No church council convinced Peter that Paul’s writings were of God, and thus Scripture. No church council was needed by Lydia or the Philippian jailer or the Ethiopian eunuch to convince them that God had spoken in the words spoken to them. In the process of sorting out which writings were truly inspired, and belong in the canon, the Holy Spirit is the key. He enables recognition of the inspired Word of God and then reinforces this recognition through others in the Body of Christ. Those convicted and convinced will meet together around His Word. As Jesus stated in John 10:

26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 "I and the Father are one." John 10:26-30 NASB

In 1646 just such a group of confessing evangelicals came together to write out their beliefs from Scripture. Their goal was to write a statement that reflected not only what they believed the Bible to teach but how they came to believe the Bible was, in fact, the Word of God. This meeting ultimately produced the highly respected and beautifully written Westminster Confession of Faith. Their statement on the recognition of Holy Scripture is informative as it articulates precisely the point I endeavor to make.

V. “We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.” [Italics mine]

As we shall see this use of the Westminster Confession of Faith would find approval among those who are concerned with too many who have extricated themselves from history and formed what is now called the Solo Scriptura society.

Solo versus Sola Scriptura

Most, if not all, Roman Catholic apologists criticize the Sola Scriptura position as self-defeating. They say this because nowhere in the Bible [sole authority] is it stated that the Bible is the sole authority. So, naturally they accuse evangelicals of going outside of Scripture to prove Sola Scriptura. This is self-defeating since one is looking elsewhere for another authority to prove that there is only one authority.

There are many confessing evangelicals who agree with Rome’s logic. However, they accuse Rome of only criticizing what is known as Solo Scriptura and not the real Reformation Sola Scriptura position. The so-called Solo Scriptura position is said to be a misrepresentation of true Sola Scriptura. So, what is the Solo Scriptura position that vexes both the Roman Catholic and confessing evangelical?

The Solo position is characterized by both Rome and confessing evangelicals as the “me and my Bible only” syndrome. By this is meant that a deliberate divorce from historical interpretations of the text, as well as formulations of early church councils, has taken place in the mind of an individual in favor of his or her own personal interpretation of any given passage of Scripture. This Solo approach is common among cults and individuals who proof text their position from the Word of God and are thus impervious to criticism.

For Rome, the remedy to such nonsense is to surrender the Bible and all personal interpretations to the See of Rome and get in step with Rome’s infallible interpretation of the Text. We shall argue later that this is theological suicide and there is no precedent for such a capitulation in either the Bible or history.

But for the moment let us view the remedy from one confessing evangelical to another. The first claims to be truly Sola Scriptura. By this he means that he does not rely upon the Bible only for his understanding of the Bible but also includes Church councils and historical interpretations as well. While holding to the position that the Bible alone is the only Word of God, he nevertheless gives much weight and authority to the early Church and the history of interpretation.

We find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma here. We might be very concerned with private interpretations of the Text. We might abhor the resulting state of those who claim fidelity to God’s Word while pronouncing [from their own personal interpretation of the Bible] the most appalling and dreadful schemes of “biblical light’ so as to corrupt Christianity altogether. There seems to be no end to it. Every manner of cult and religious aberration seems to find justification from the Bible. All the while such twaddle is tossed out onto the marketplace, the Roman Catholic is saying, “I told you so.” Those of us who hold to Sola Scriptura are painfully aware that the Bible has been used and abused for personal and satanic purposes for ages. There is even a sense of doubt cast over all of Protestantism when one considers the irreconcilable and lamentable differences over doctrines that divide. In fact, the shame and scandal associated with the freedom to interpret the Bible as a group or individual has driven many right back to Rome. In addition, it has caused many well meaning confessing evangelicals to reduce the essentials of Christianity to almost nothing rather than risk a church split or more arguments over doctrine. Today, if you can walk, chew gum and believe in Jesus you are considered to be a Christian. Doctrine is watered down to avoid schism and promote unity. The alleged Christian world comes into view as one gigantic mess and the culprit appears to be the so-called right of every individual or group to construe and follow his own private interpretations of the Bible. Who could possibly sort it out and land in the right camp? Where are we going to find the right interpretation of the Bible?

In hopes of avoiding both Rome’s claim that the Sola Scriptura position is untenable because the Bible never says that the Bible alone is the only Word of God, and the assumed pitfalls of Solo Scriptura, some evangelicals have opted for a sort of middle of the road approach. Fearing the logical trap of Solo Scriptura, not to mention the fallout of such a position as mentioned above, some evangelicals wish to bring the Church councils and Church Fathers more into play along with early Creeds of the Church. By so doing, it is said that there is an attachment to some authorities other than one’s own personal interpretation of the Text. The idea is that Christians should be willing to subject their personal interpretations to the ancient Church and in some sense to the Councils and the Fathers to check their personal explanations. At first blush this sounds tenable but in reality it may be nothing more than window dressing. For instance, we might use for an example the Nicene Creed. Many confessing evangelicals champion this Creed because of its orthodoxy concerning the person of Jesus Christ. Nicea set forth the eternality of Jesus Christ, preserving His deity in the face of opposition from Arius. In the process of explaining the substance of Jesus Christ, among other things, the Council settled upon a Creed of faith.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

To avoid the stigma of Solo Scriptura, it has been suggested that confessing evangelicals be more submissive and attentive to Creeds such as the one above. But what happens when the Creed contains language that violates the conscience of the individual Christian? Soon those whose conscience cannot adhere to a Creed begin to meet together and amend the Creed or simply write a new one! Are they heretics? Are they schismatics? Have they violated the Bible and misinterpreted it to their own harm? If we view but one sentence of the Nicene Creed, as stated above, it presents a problem for literally thousands upon thousands of confessing evangelical Christians. The Creed states plainly:

“We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”

How do we evaluate the accuracy of interpretation of a historical creed? We cannot ask the authors what they may have meant by some of their assertions. So, we normally see if the assertion of the creed fits the biblical data. Is there a baptism, of any kind, recorded in Scripture that forgives sins? Should Christians “acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”? Who will decide? Who says so? Who is right? We are right back where we started. I fear an appeal to the Church Fathers might yield the same result. Who is going to interpret Augustine correctly? Which parts of the massive amount of writings in the Church Father can be trusted?

So here we are. Any attempt to return to Rome is wide of the mark since it would be tantamount to declaring the entire Protestant Reformation an error. This would mean that the theology of Rome and Rome’s interpretation of the Bible and the gospel etc. has been right all along. Something I am sure would be welcomed by those who have fiercely defended Rome against the likes of the early and later Reformers. To go back to Rome is to surrender biblical understanding to Rome. This is a price too big to pay for Christians who read their Bibles and cannot find the religion of Roman Catholicism in the Bible. It is understood that some former evangelicals have taken this route back to Rome. One thing is for certain, a person cannot have it both ways. One cannot believe in Sola Ecclesia and Sola Scriptura all at once.

And as much as I may wish to sympathize with those who want to mesh Scripture with Tradition and Creeds and Church Fathers to escape Rome’s accusation that Sola Scriptura is self-defeating, I cannot do so. Nor am I persuaded, by the dreadful state of affairs that has ensued amongst Protestants and confessing evangelicals who have taken their liberty to interpret the Bible to wild and unchristian excesses, to abandon Solo Scriptura in favor of what I may call Sola Scriptura Plus.

I am, however, very sympathetic with those who wish to test their exegesis and application of Scripture by men of the past including the Church Fathers and other writers of note and distinction. It is fool hardy to think that any one person or group of persons can study the Bible in a void without the witness of history. To this end all should pursue a diligent approach to studying the Bible without forgetting the past and without undue reliance upon the past. It is this dynamic which gives us the best of what the Word of God has to say to us and also, perhaps, the worst of what man can do to distort the Word of God.

I am afraid that we are going to have to live with a cacophony [discord of sounds] of Christian witness regardless of how much it hurts until the Lord returns. For those who wish to see unity and same mindedness when it comes to understanding the Bible, I would encourage you to consider two things. First, the Lord knows His own and His Body will not be undone by wide and varied distortions of His Word. Secondly, there is an element of diversity within the Christian community that is virtually assured by the Bible. A careful reading of Romans 14 yields the conclusion that some are convinced and convicted differently of different things within the Body of Christ. Should this lead to division? I do not think so, if we can learn to tolerate our diversity with humility. But, I am not suggesting that the liberty afforded by the Bible in Romans 14 extends to critical Christian doctrine. If there must be splits and schisms let them be based upon matters of weight that are worthy of such cracks within in the Body of Christ.

As chilling a thought as this may be, I am persuaded that, at the end of the day, it falls to each individual and the Word of God in hand (guided by the Holy Spirit) regardless of the tumult and heresy that may emerge from such a scenario. The alternatives are too destructive to Christianity. Sacerdotalism, Romanism, State Churches and Council dominated religious organizations holding captive their prey are not an alternative to each man a Bible in his hand. Or, as the Westminster Confession so aptly concludes:

X. “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”

It is the prayer of every Christian that he would, in the words of the apostle Paul:

15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.” 2 Tim 2:15-16 NASB

The confessing Christian with Bible in hand should not be so easily overthrown by Rome’s claims of logic. The Bible is fully self-attesting to its value and worth. While not stating that it alone is the only Word of God; it does state that it is the Word of God. Let those who argue that another Word of God exists bear the burden of proof. Let them bring to us their writings that they can assuredly prove to be the Word of God. Then let us measure their claims in light of the one Word of God that we are sure of.

Until then, logic dictates that we live according to what all have believed everywhere at all times. The Bible, as it has come to be under the supervision of the Holy Spirit, despite Rome’s claims to authority, is yet our guide and our rule.

When many were deserting Jesus he turned to His disciples and asked them if they too wanted to leave. Peter’s answer I think fits well as far as the Word of God written is concerned.

67 “Jesus said therefore to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?" 68 Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69 "And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God." John 6:66-70 NASB

All Christians feel the same way about the Bible. Lord, to what shall we turn? You have given to us the Words of eternal life. And we have believed and we have come to know.

RMZ