Let’s look at those four things, shall we? But before we do that, let’s build start with question 0.

Question 0

I start with this question because like all metaphysical presumptions, it’s more important than the four questions he explicitly asked. Recall what I wrote:

John C. Wright claimed that if he set aside any disputed fact between Protestants and Catholics, what was left was Roman Catholicism. But I retorted that the very basis of the authority to determine biblical canon is itself based on historical contradiction.

Having a church to tell us what the canon provides us with no advantage at all. Indeed, the Roman Catholic view of canonization leads to a self-refuting contradiction. Furthermore,

I then go on to note that the supposed required method of canonization by authority did not take place with the Old Testament. The formation of the Old Testament was a bottom-up, community-based approach, not a top-down, episcopal approach. Most importantly, the Catholic canon isn’t canonical.

Jesus, the apostles, and the early church mostly used the Greek Septuagint. And, this is critical, they shared the same canon with the one used by the Pharisees. In particular, Jesus quoted from every section of the Pharisee’s canon. In particular, Jesus never quoted from the deuterocanonicals, which the Roman Catholics consider to be canonical.

The most important act of canonization by the Roman Catholic Church got it wrong. Yes, that’s right. For all its vaunted authority, it chose a canon that was different than the one that Christ used! Oh, and don’t forget that they chose the wrong translation—the Latin Vulgate—as the official Bible of the church, a translation with numerous important errors.

Roman Catholicism is as equally bad at infallibly canonizing “The Living Voice” as they are at defining the list of infallible ex cathedra statements and an infallibly defined list of ecumenical councils. For all their authority, they have never been able to do any of it.

Meanwhile, Jesus demonstrated that he was perfectly comfortable flexibly working with a restricted canon, such as that of the Sadducees or Samaritans:

As for the New Testament, the Roman Catholic church did a bad job with that too:

So, no, we do not need an infallible church authority to define canon before being able to apply sola scriptura. The very method of “authoritative” canonization that the Roman Catholic Church uses has no valid basis and is demonstrably wrong anyway.

As sola scriptura implies, the identification of scripture qua scripture is self-evident. God’s word is self-authenticating.

Question 1

I’ve never understood the purpose of questions like these.

Is the concept of Roman Catholic authority invalid because there exist persons with profound developmental disorders that result in extremely low intelligence? If sola scripture were false because someone could not receive the Word of God in written form, then would the blind be excluded from faith?

These are absurd premises.

Why should the ability to read matter at all? The ability to read is related to the ability to hear, as both are rooted in one’s intellectual abilities. Whether oral or written tradition, this objection applies to both equally.

Nor was this the standard in the Old Testament with the written Law. God expected each Hebrew to follow the law whether or not he could read the words themselves or understand it orally when it was read. Even when the Word of God was temporarily lost, God still expected it to be followed:

There was no chain-of-custody nor authenticating authority for the Word of God. Yet Jesus still expected each and every Jew to follow every last word.

Scripture is not true because of sola scriptura. Rather, sola scriptura is true because scripture is true. The Word of God is not contingent on the condition of man. Sola scriptura is a necessary interference.

But let’s try to answer the question directly anyway.

Most people are natural followers. Even among Protestants, not everyone is supposed to be their own leader. Protestant leaders may be individually called, but that doesn’t imply that everyone is called to lead. It has always been the case that the majority of people need to be led. The universal ability to read, write, or understand scripture has never been a requirement.

But it does not logically follow from this that a central authority is required (or even an authority at all).

Wrapped up in this question is the implication that following God is difficult and doing the right thing can’t be determined without a high intellectual ability. I simply don’t agree with that. Illiterate persons have been following God just fine for centuries.

The problem isn’t those who can’t read and write, it’s with those who can. Much more will be asked of those who have been given much. So I spin the question around: what good is church authority when all of those men and women have been doomed because Roman Catholic authorities taught them erroneously… or worse, put them to death? Compared to this, the lack of literacy is a minor logistical problem.

Question 2

This is a mind-boggling objection. Here is the citation:

Why would he cite this verse which specifically mentions following the written instructions on how to conduct oneself?

As stated under Question 0, the assumption, unless otherwise stated, should be that the method of canonizing the New Testament would be the same as the canonizing of the Old Testament. Jesus never established a new canon or method of canonization. Thus, the Roman Catholic church must not use its authority to tell us what canon is before using sola scriptura. That’s not how the Old Testament worked, so it can’t be how the New Testament works.

Why would he cite that the household—people—of God are the pillar and foundation of the truth if he wanted to deny that the people are the foundation of truth? This is a very Protestant understanding, so it is curious that he would cite this. The Old Testament was formed by a bottom-up community driven approach, which is exactly what is being described here. Completely absent is any mention to hierarchical authority, let alone a pope or episcopate.

This is especially ironic, because 1 Timothy 3 is about how deacons and overseers should conduct themselves. These were written instructions for the deacons and overseers, so they would conduct themselves appropriately as members of the whole body of the church. Rather than identifying the overseers and deacons with the pillar and foundation of the truth, it is the whole church that is!

It was the overseers and deacons who had to be given written instructions. They were not being set up to tell the congregation what to do as authorities on truth, but rather they were being told how they must conduct themselves, submitting themselves (per Ephesians 5) to the church, the latter of which is the source of truth.

And, its worth noting, that it is this section of scripture that insists that deacons and overseers in the church are expected to be married and have children.

Question 3

The proper question is whether or not sola scriptura is definitively described, not whether the term-of-art itself it discussed. After all, I would certainly be willing to agree to discard any and every doctrine or dogma described by a non-biblical term-of-art (e.g. The Real Presence; Sacrament) if the Roman Catholic will agree to do the same.

Notice what this would mean. If we rejected every term-of-art not found in scripture or the early patristic writers, what would you be left with? Scripture alone. That’s the whole point.

But, of course, Roman Catholicism adamantly refuses to discard the doctrines and dogmas that are not spoken of by scripture or the early patristic writers (e.g. Papal Infallibility; Marian dogmas). They insist that the “seeds” of these are found in the earlier works. So by the same epistemological standard, I also refuse to discard sola scriptura as a matter of principle. As soon as Roman Catholicism is willing to hold itself to the same standard that it wants to hold me to, then we can have a conversation. Until then, I have no interest in double standards.

But, importantly, even if sola scriptura (the semantics, not the terminology) were not necessarily implied by scripture itself, much more than the “seeds” of sola scriptura are found in scripture and the early patristics. Prior to the late fourth century, Irenaeus insisted that the entire corpus of what was revealed as the Word of God was written down (see: Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 10 and Book II, Chapter 5). When he spoke of heretics, Irenaeus described how the heretics went beyond what was written into their oral traditions (see: Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapters 8 and 9). It is simply not true that we do not hear about sola scriptura in the patristic writings. These are explicit references to written tradition being the sole Word of God.

Now even as the early writers wrote of using only scripture, at the same time we don’t hear anything about Roman or Papal supremacy until the late fourth century. For much of the fourth century, Rome wasn’t even the head of its own diocese, let alone the whole church! If Rome didn’t have primacy, then the entire church didn’t believe in Roman primacy. Full stop. Thus, the “authority of Rome” is an historical myth, an anachronism. The alternative to sola scriptura is not only not attested to at all, but is actively attested against.

Sola ecclesia is a logical and historical impossibility. Sola scriptura is, in actuality, the only viable “choice” if one cares about being deep in history, for to be deep in history is to cease to be Roman Catholic. If the Roman Catholic can come up with a viable historical alternative to sola scriptura, I’ll hear them out, but until that point I’ll avoid the myths and stick with the only possible option.

For a detailed discussion comparing sola scriptura and sola ecclesia, see the series “The Visible Apostolicity of the Invisibly Shepherded Church” by Timothy F. Kauffman.

Question 4

First, by including the deuterocanonicals, Roman Catholicism got the canon wrong for more than a millennium. That’s an indictment on Roman Catholicism, not the early church (prior to the late 4th century) or anyone else, including Luther. We don’t blame the victim—the established canon—for the faults of the perpetrator.

Second, as we noted above under Question 0, Roman Catholicism still has the wrong canon. Somehow, despite its infallible authority, it managed to err in the dogmatic declaration of the canon.

Third, Roman Catholicism got by just fine for more than a millennium without (supposedly) needing to invoke authority on an official canon.

Fourth, it’s not like the canon is helping Roman Catholics. Only 6 or 7 passages of scripture have ever been infallibly interpreted. Reverend Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Secretariat for Doctrine and Doctrinal Practices, in Washington, D.C. asked an unnamed eminent theologian which verses Rome had interpreted infallibly, who then deferred to Raymond Brown’s article on Hermeneutics in New Jerome Bible Commentary. Here is the letter:

Or consider how Roman Catholics use Tobit as scripture, yet Tobit 12:12-15 has the angel presenting our prayers to God as “incense.” Later, the angel Raphael exhorts them to give their blessings, songs, praise, and thanks to God. This is the same as Psalm 141:1-2. Yet, Roman Catholics say that this means we can pray to angels. Having an authoritative canon certainly does not help with reading comprehension or infallible interpretation.

Having the Roman Catholic authority to define canon has not actually provided anything of value to date. At best, it has clouded the issue by invoking by a fallacious argument from authority rather than applying reason or revelation. At worst, it made a grave error.

Fifth, the main reason that the church has been wrong about the number of books in the canon since the late fourth century is this: a non-apostolic church tried to canonize Christian scriptures in the first place. Or, put another way:

Why was the Man of Lawlessness in Thessalonians and the Beast of Revelation wrong about the number of books of canon?

Such a mystery. I guess we’ll never know why Satan didn’t establish a valid canon.

As with all of these questions, this question is premised on the false notion that Roman Catholicism is apostolic, rather than having originated in the late fourth century. As soon as one familiarizes oneself with the history of the church, these questions just become irrelevant. It’s simply not important that the apostate church has gotten the canon wrong since ~350AD.

This is why I cited Irenaeus, an early writer who rejected the validity of oral tradition. It’s why I cite Cyril of Jerusalem, who wrote in the middle of the fourth century, right at the cusp of the rise of Roman Catholicism. He taught sola scriptura. Yet, he didn’t follow through with his own teachings.

Consider this rebuttal by a Roman Catholic apologist:

Did Cyril teach sola scriptura? Well, according to the apologist, he couldn’t be because of… the Second Vatican Council. Talk about a citation that begs-the-question! This is especially ironic, because a growing number of traditional Roman Catholics do not consider the Second Vatican Council to be ecumenical and authoritative. Regardless, this is the Roman Catholic Axiom in action, which we last saw in action by Roman Catholic David Waltz in “Sacraments, Part 3: Baptismal Regeneration.”

It doesn’t matter how close is the connection is between scripture and other traditions. When Cyril says that scripture is required for “even a casual statement,” then scripture is required whether or not you have other traditions to go along with it. If you have some other tradition that isn’t found in scripture, then it’s a violation of what Cyril says. It doesn’t matter at all how close the connection is if there is no connection to begin with. Scripture is fundamental.

Like the Roman Catholic church and canon, the same objection applies to Cyril:

First, Cyril taught error because he didn’t practice what he preached. He went outside of the scriptural warrant that he insisted upon. He taught that scripture was required, but then embraced heretical doctrines that were not supported by scripture. This is the exactly same thing that caused the Roman Catholic Church to be wrong about the canon for more than a thousand years.

This is the problem with rejecting sola scriptura. Without an anchor, you cannot tell what teachings are correct and which are heresy. You are left to cherry pick what you want and rejecting the rest (i.e. selection bias and circular reasoning). This is especially important with Cyril, because he taught things that Roman Catholics reject. Moreover, authority doesn’t help, because you need infallible lists that do not exist. Scripture is the only anchor that tells you which teachings of Cyril are right and which are wrong.

Second, Cyril didn’t teach that the eucharist was the “true” (literal?) flesh and blood of Jesus. As we saw in “The Eucharist, Part 24: Cyril of Jerusalem,” Cyril in 350AD was the first patristic writer to consecrate—through the prayer of thanksgiving—the bread and wine before it was offered. In doing so, he was the first patristic writer to make the sacrifice propitiatory. That is his primary contribution to the development of the Roman Catholic Eucharist. But,

(1) He still viewed the elements as spiritual symbols (antitypes) of Christ’s body and blood. The bread and wine were the physical reality, while the body and blood were the spiritual reality. The physical was a symbol for the spiritual.

(2) He offered—as a sacrfice—the bread and wine before the eucharist received the words of institution in the epiclesis (“This is my body. This is my blood”). The ancient structure (or ordering) of the liturgy remained unchanged.

(3) His eucharist was still a tithe offering, which included ointment.

(4) He described the sacrifice we offer as the one found in Malachi: a sacrifice of praise. It never even occurred to Cyril to insert Christ’s sacrifice into the sole sacrifice prophesied by Malachi that the church now offers.

So while we acknowledge the important role that Cyril played in corrupting the ancient eucharist and “sacrifice of the dismissal” during the late fourth century, it is simply not true that he taught that the eucharist was the true flesh and blood of Jesus.

Cyril’s words remind me of one of the quotes by the Roman Catholic who inspired the series on the Eucharist:

The typical Roman Catholic apologist is quick to cite Cyril as the source of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. And yet, I’m lectured in no uncertain terms about the importance of the words of institution, the very words that Cyril himself failed to use during the sacrifice! I suppose Cyril must be famously known for calling Jesus a liar.

Remember when Cyprian said that Jesus didn’t offer his literal blood at the Last Supper when he said “this is my blood,” because Christ had to be crucified first before believers could drink his blood? I guess Cyprian was calling Jesus a liar too.

Where have I heard that before? Oh, that’s right:

It’s the spirit of the age: no need for discussion, explanation, or reason. Just assert that you are right and end any possibility for discussion or debate.

The question of canon ultimately doesn’t matter because to the Roman Catholic it isn’t actually up for debate. The issue has already been settled dogmatically, and no matter what arguments you raise, the dogma is unassailable. Cyprian, Irenaeus, and Cyril are all required by the church to supports its doctrines and dogmas. No dissent is allowed.

Roman and Papal Supremacy didn’t exist in the middle of the fourth century, but that won’t stop the Roman Catholics from asserting that it did exist. They are obligated to believe it. The same thing applies to the question of canon. I could write a thousand articles and cite a thousand sources, and it wouldn’t—couldn’t—ever change the dogmatic declaration of canon.

Don’t get distracted by the questions and answers. They don’t really matter. That’s not the line that divides us.

If you think this conclusion is faulty, it has yet to be proven wrong. No Roman Catholic has ever responded to my claims without ultimately resorting to dismissal, ad hominem, non sequitur, and/or circular reasoning. There is always a first time, I guess. I hope my cynicism is proven wrong!

Summary

No. Because of this, all that follows is merely an academic/intellectual exercise.

It’s mostly irrelevant. At worst, it is a minor logistical problem that is easily overcome. It isn’t a hurdle to sola scriptura.

1 Timothy 3 fully supports sola scriptura in that it asserts that leaders must follow the written instructions and that truth comes from the whole church, not its leaders who must bind themselves to the church (not the other way around). Also, church leaders must be married and have children.

We do in the writings of Irenaeus and Cyril.

Because the Roman Catholic Church is apostate. What it thinks about canon has no validity.