April 17, 2004  5:25 AM

With apologies for unforeseen but unavoidable delay, I offer not so much a rebuttal to Matt's assertions regarding the proper place of Scripture as a straightforward statement of my own position.

For the first 1/3 of human history, no written revelation that we know of was available to man. In the ancient times we read in the accounts that God, when He would, spoke to men directly giving guidance and commandment. On each occassion, we can be certain that what He provided was sufficient for the need and a responsibility placed on the men who heard commensurate to the revelation then provided.

To digress for a moment, we are told there is an authority, ongoing from the beginning, apart from God's words; this is the witness of nature. "The heavens declare the glory of God . . . Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard." Thus, Paul tells us, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Man's conscience is also an inborn 'authority' and a witness against his evil deeds. God having called out a nation to Himself gave them -- not the Gentiles -- a written law. Paul said, "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their heart, their conscience also bearing witness."

Although the law was given to Israel after many centuries of no written revelation, the universal moral truth contained in the law was always true, and mankind always responsible. Paul: "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. NEVERTHELESS DEATH REIGNED from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Even in the ABSENCE of written revelation, this was the case. The fact that Israel could not attain righteousness by the law is not merely to their blame; it is an indictment of us all, "that all the world may become guilty before God."

When God charged Joshua, with only the Pentateuch available to mankind, (and to Israel,) He commanded him: "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."

Throughout the Old Testament we read the word of the Lord being proclaimed to the people. When He said, "Hear, O Israel," it was meant for the people to hear and appropriate and believe and act upon. Isaiah begins with a wider audience -- God saying, "Hear, O heavens, and give ear O earth, for the Lord hath spoken." And is a third party yet to enter in to 'interpret' the words the Lord speaks directly to all?

We would both agree that the revelation made in the Scriptures is progressive in nature. God did not reveal the whole Plan at once, but in stages. Even the prophets found themselves, "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."

But the revelation made at each stage was sufficient to the people to whom He gave it. Thus, Abraham answers the rich man in hell concerning his lost brothers who might otherwise "also come to this place of torment": "'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 'Nay father Abraham: but if one rose from the dead they will repent.' And he said unto him, 'If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.'"

Abraham made no reference to seeking out religious authority. If they heard not the extant Scriptures, they would not repent in spite even of a miraculous occurence. Thus Paul tells Timothy, "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." The Scriptures can make us "wise unto salvation"!

Throughout the Bible, the word of God is given to _men_ who are expected to hear and heed, and to make use of their own intellectual faculties in so doing.

When Paul preached at Thessalonica we are told that "he went in unto them, and three sabbath days REASONED with them out of the Scriptures, . . . and some of them believed . . ." Now are we not to assume that this meant they would 'interpret' the Scriptures as individuals? The question becomes ridiculous when we come next to Paul's ministry in Berea, and it is here that my objections with Matt really take form.

We are told that "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, AND SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, WHETHER THOSE THINGS WERE SO."

Paul, with apostolic authority, preached, yet the Bereans are commended for having searched the Scriptures FOR THEMSELVES to test the propositions he made to them! I can do no less regarding the claims of any, including the Roman Catholic Church.

Here a chicken-and-egg situation is presented. If I begin with the Scriptures, and consider them as the Bereans, I must find some basis therein for external claims made. Or I can begin, as Matt apparently does, from the proposition that said claims are authoritative, notwithstanding what Scripture says -- and must preconclude that this external body alone can determine the correct meaning of these words of God. If I accept the latter, then truly all the verses I have quoted up to this point are without significance in themselves. But if I begin with the former proposition, then Houston, we have a problem.

The progression of revelation in the past anticipated each portion to come. Moses led the prophets of later time, but also laid down the test of true prophets. The Jews were the authority unto the time of Christ, who even said, "Salvation is of the Jews." The OT anticipated the coming of Christ, who in turn commissioned His Apostles. Paul's ministry, unique in character, was validated by the other Apostles. He and several others wrote the rest of the New Testament. But what do I have beyond this?

In order for the claims of Roman Catholicism to have any basis, they must be plainly made, or at least anticipated, in the revelation through this point. But where is it? Where in all the New Testament is the notion of apostolic succession found? Where is there any hint that the church, the ecclesia means, even in the institutional sense of the term's usage, anything beyond what the word means -- assembly -- as a local gathering of believers? Where do we find the notion of the church as a corporate, hierarchical structure headquartered in a specific geographical location?

Without these fundamentals being found, the rest of Roman Catholic doctrine needn't even be considered, though failing the Berean test as much of it does so miserably. But Roman Catholics barely make a pretense of even trying to do so; Matt certainly has not. He simply asserts, without any Biblical evidence therefor, that we have to begin by placing faith entirely in the interpretations of his institution. I submit that this requisite demand is due to the fact that the basis of such CANNOT be proven from Scripture. But if the case cannot be proven therefrom, then there is no case.

If this is 'sola scriptura' then, yes, I accept it. The whole tenor of the New Testament, with God's full plan of salvation now fully revealed, capped by an awesome letter of the Apostle John that beautifully ties together enigmatic OT prophesies. His book, alone of all others, promises a blessing to those who will read, hear, and keep it. He ends by taking us to the ultimate triumph of Christ at the end of this age, and concludes with the final prayer: "Even so, come Lord Jesus." He further warns: "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book . . ."

The Roman Catholic asks that we prove 'sola scriptura.' But there's nothing to prove, for we have made no challenge. I know what Scripture says about itself, and that's enough. All that remains is for me to read it, believe it, and obey it, which occupies my life quite enough. If anyone asserts anything beyond this, the burden of proof is on HIM.

Matt says that there must be a central authority to decide what the Scriptures mean. Absent from any such consideration is the role of the Holy Spirit, which Matt never mentions. Without His involvement between the words He inspired and the individual to whom they are given, I concede that Matt's statements would be logical. Matt stands in the place of Gideon, wondering how he can defeat the Midianite army with but 300 men armed with lamps and pitchers. If we take God out of the equation, we must concede that was a good question! To be fair to Matt, the error that he makes is one that has been made by God's greatest servants. Thus Moses heeded his father-in-law's very sensible, worldy advise on the administration of the people in the wilderness. (Ex 18:12-27) But when God, in His own time, made His own order of things, (Num 11:14-17) He just ignored what Jethro and Moses had set up.

What? Is the Spirit of God not capable of making real and clear His word in the hearts of any that diligently seek His guidance? Or is He limited to dealing with a small cadre who can then take up the task that would otherwise be too tedious for Him? James taught us that "If ANY of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to ALL MEN LIBERALLY, and upbraideth not; AND IT SHALL BE GIVEN HIM." He doesn't grant this wisdom merely to some 'magisterium" but to ALL who ask of Him! What is it here that Matt doesn't see? Paul in fact wrote his epistles to the members of given churches. Must he then have needed to come to that church and make authoritative explanation for what he had explained in his writing? When Paul wrote, he would sometimes ask the reader a key question, "For what saith the scripture?" Even our Lord Jesus, when He was tempted by the devil 3 times, answered each instance by quoting the Scriptures -- a method available to His lowliest follower.

Matt hangs his hat on the fact that, while there are numerous non-catholic bodies, there is "only one Roman Catholic Church." And what good is this? In the first place, again, there is no Biblical basis for the meaning of ecclesia as here applied. In the last book of the NT, we see the words of the Lord to seven distinct churches, assemblies of believers in respective cities. In each case, rebuke and/or commendation is proffered. There is shown to be a difference in the doctrine that one or another has embraced. Thus to Pergamos He refers to a doctrine they hold, "which I hate." But in NO case does he repair to any intermediate earthly authority! He never points to a regional head, or any magisterium, or ANY ecclesiastical authority! In each relevant case, the One who will make direct judgment and punishment is none Other than HIMSELF!! And I believe He is eminently capable notwithstanding the number of 'churches' existing today. He says to the ecclesia at Ephesus, "_I_ will remove thy lampstand out of its place, except thou shalt repent." He says to Pergamos, "Repent therefore, but if not, _I_ come to thee quickly, and _I_ will make war with them with the sword of _My_ mouth." "To Laodicea he says, ". . . _I_ am about to spew thee out of My mouth . . . _I_ counsel thee . . . _I_ rebuke and disciple as many as I love, be zealous therefore and repent." Plainly, each of these 'churches' is accountable to none Other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and so it is with every assembly on earth.

Matt points to the facade of a unitary, corporate structure. But even the very structure has no foundation in Scripture.

This summary, incomplete though it is, cannot fail to mention a passage so frequently quoted by Roman Catholics, one of about a half-dozen verses that Catholics seem to be able to quote freely, almost as cliches, and nearly always wrested from context and with no connection to the other passages that deal on the same topic: We are reminded that "No scripture is of any private interpretation." At least that's how it always has hit my ears. Yet from start, it's not even a correct quote. The verse says, "no PROPHECY OF scripture is of any private interpretation." (They can't even quote the verse correctly! Again and again and again and again and again I have heard it quoted the other way.) And here, the meaning of the passage already becomes perverted. Let's consider the words around this pericope:

The whole passage shows clearly that the present explanation, or elucidation, of a given Scripture isn't even what's in view here. What is being addressed is the sure SOURCE of the prophecy of Scripture. (By contrast, God speaks to Ezekial: "Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination . . .") It doesn't say anything here that is inferred by the Roman Catholic. And even if it did, it is preposterous to cite this in regard to the primary areas of doctrinal disagreement, for in those cases we deal with questions which are hardly private, but have been discussed and debated publicly for centuries -- while we are to otherwise believe that a pope writing an 'interpretation' of a passage in the seclusion of his chambers is somehow doing so less than privately. But no matter -- the passage does not even contemplate the reception of the holy text, but its INCEPTION, (which a careful review of the Greek words will also confirm.) For this, we need only consider other relevant passages.

Paul told Timothy: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workmen that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing (or properly handling) the word of truth." Where in this exhortation do we see Paul telling the young man to make appeal to some other source for the authoritative clarification?

On one level it is certainly true that the Scriptures can never fully be comprehended by an individual, not in a million readings -- nor can it be fully appropriated by ANY body of men on earth. Of course not; it's the word of GOD. The Scriptures are to be mined like riches, read and reread, meditated upon, pondered, prayed over, loved and cherished! And here is where I feel no connection to any Roman Catholic I have ever met in my life. I have never known the Catholic who comes eagerly with the report of how he read a portion of God's word and felt great blessing, or great conviction, or great inspiration at a greater understanding of grace we have in Christ. I have never known the Catholic who radiates a genuine and passionate love for the precious words of God. To the contrary, the one thing that I have heard all Catholics in common assert concerning the Bible is its insufficiency, its inadequacy; this is the common denominator that unites all Catholics I have ever known, including my beloved Catholic friends at VFR.

Matt has hardly ever made recourse to the Scriptures, even in between his exceptional offerings of worldy wisdom. I have read more references to this or that council than to the precious word of God. Matt says the Scriptures can't be enough. But the limitation he has placed is really upon God -- that God is unable to produce a written revelation that would be sufficient to the needs of a given age. No, God IS capable, and if those who suggest otherwise would repent and immerse themselves into His magnificent revelation, they would find not mere sufficiency -- Our Cup Runneth Over! There is more in this wonderful book than any of us could begin to appreciate in a thousand lifetimes. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away." And there is more than enough here to guide us in our pilgrimage in this fallen world during the present age.

I don't know what is meant exactly by the notion of divine presence in the reading as Matt referred. But the Lord Jesus said, "the words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." His words are "spirit" and "life"; I'll settle on that and needn't take it further. Psalms tells us, "Wherewith shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word." "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." "Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee."

None of this is to deny that there is a ministry of teaching the Scriptures -- I couldn't, for having been a grateful beneficiary -- as Ezra did for the people under Nehemiah. Nor do I deny that the Scriptures must be expounded to the unbeliever, for which the Ethiopian eunich is the classic example. He couldn't understand Isaiah 53 until Stephen preached to him JESUS. But this is why the Christian is given the commission to share the Gospel. In the end, it still comes back to His word: "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," as Paul said. And the Christian has the promise of wisdom to be granted by the Spirit if he will but ask for it. But a central, earthly, hierarchical, corporate body to which all must defer? Show me in the Scriptures where this is so.

I'm sure that there are some things I have said that Matt would voice agreement with. Where we disagree, let him prove his case from the Scriptures. If he says that I must simply heed his institution on faith as my starting point, irrespective of any basis for doing so that is founded on the Scriptures, then we have at least defined our area of irreconcilable disagreement.