Sola Scriptura and the Dispensation of the Mystery
Phillip Dennis
Abstract: This session will examine the doctrine of sola Scriptura and how a proper understanding of the dispensation of the Mystery strengthens this key doctrine. Particular areas to be examined will include: (1) what is sola Scriptura? (2) the Scripture’s self-attestation; (3) the concept of true doctrinal frameworks; (4) the relation and implications of sola Scriptura and the dispensation of the Mystery to doctrine and practice with emphasis on the implications/relation of this doctrine to the absence of all “ceremonies” and “ordinances” for the Body.
I. Outline
A. Introduction.
B. What is sola Scriptura.
C. The Doctrine of Scripture and Scripture’s self-attestation.
D. True Doctrinal Frameworks.
E. Dispensation of the Mystery and sola Scriptura.
F. Conclusion.
II. Introduction
A. Sola Scriptura was the rallying cry of the reformers in their opposition to the Roman Catholic Church’s false doctrines that scripture plus tradition determines doctrine and practice; and that the Roman Catholic Church alone was the authoritative interpreter and protector of the so-called “deposit of faith” – the deposit of faith being equated with scripture and tradition. Tradition includes both new revelation plus the authoritative interpretation of the scripture (magisterium).
B. Of course, the phrase “sola Scriptura” is not to be found in the Bible – just as the word Trinity is not – but sola Scriptura is in fact taught in the Bible by necessary inference - as is the doctrine of the Triune Godhead.
C. Sola Scriptura is a summary of the doctrines of the sufficiency, necessity, clarity, inerrancy and authority of Scripture – and a direct denial of the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to be the continuing channel of revelation and tradition and its usurpation and actual denial of Scripture’s authority.
D. It is ironic that today "Protestantism" has strayed in varying degrees from the doctrine of sola Scriptura. There is in fact the leaven of traditions, especially in regard to the doctrine of ceremonies. Also, there is an attendant, almost predictable, resistence in the form of an appeal to "tradition" (historic Christianity) when the truth of the dispensation of the Mystery and Paul's "good news" is presented.
III. What is sola Scriptura?
A. Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that Scripture alone is the sole authority for doctrine and practice.
IV. The Scripture’s self-attestation.
A. Doctrine of Scripture:
1. Perspicuity, Sufficiency, Necessity, Inerrant, authoritative.
2. Original autogr aphs are inerrant in all they affirm. But one cannot decide what they affirm without a hermeneutic (method of interpretation). Doctrine of inerrancy includes the doctrine of the hermeneutic.
3. Normative hermeneutic : Unless context of the passage or parallel passages requires otherwise, normative usage of a word, phrase, grammatical construction , figure of speech , etc. should prevail. Burden of proof is on the exceptional usage.
4. (2) and (3) together: Scriptures are inerrant in all they affirm as interpreted by the normative hermeneutic.
5. 2 Tim. 2:15. This passage by itself provides a beautiful adductive proof of the normative hermeneutic. By the very act of interpreting this passage via the normative hermeneutic one, in fact, arrives at or “sees” that the normative hermeneutic applies to all of Scripture! For it declares that the Scriptures are to be understood by “straightly plowing” (“rightly dividing”) all of Scripture.
B. Old Interpreted Before New
1. Old revelation was interpreted and understood in its own right by the normative hermeneutic by the original regenerate hearers-readers before new revelation was given.
2. If not, how could the original regenerate hearers have obtained knowledge of the Word and obeyed? Deut. 29:29.
3. Old must therefore be interpreted and understood by normative hermeneutic before new is interpreted and understood by the normative hermeneutic.
4. In particular, if it has been determined that both old and new revelation address the same subject, then the older revelation must be understood in its own right; and it then sets the fr amework for incorporating and understanding the new revelation on that subject, NEVER THE REVERSE; new enriches old (on a given subject).
5. Illustrations
a. Prophecies in Daniel regarding Israel incorporate Matt 24 ; Luke 21 ; 2 Thess 2:4,8,9 ; Revelation; etc., not the reverse.
b. Prophecies regarding Israel in Eze. 40-48 ; Isa. 2, 60; Zech 14; etc. incorporate Matt 5:5; Acts 3:21_ff.; 1 Pet 1:10, 2:12; etc., not the reverse.
C. Point: The Old Testament first interpreted in its own right will show that the dispensation of the Mystery revealed to Paul is a completely different dispensational framework.
D. Concentrate on sufficiency:
1. That is the meaning of the sola in sola Scriptura.
2. Proving doctrine from the Word is precisely the Biblical epistemology and methodology that the reformers followed. So, in actuality, the methodology we follow is the methodology of the reformed confessions. See
a. Westminster Confession
b. Belgic Confession
c. 2nd Helvitic Confession
3. All of these confessions implicitly declare themselves to be fallible and reformable by virtue of their explicit testimony to sola Scriptura.
4. Comments of John Gill, Cause of God and Truth, Part IV, Introduction: “Since those doctrines which are commonly called Calvinistical are charged with novelty, and are represented as running directly contrary to the whole stream of antiquity, and the sentiments of the ancient fathers and as entirely unknown to the Christian church before the time of Augustine; when, on the other hand, the doctrines of the universal scheme are said to be confirmed by the concurrent suffrage of all antiquity, and the express and frequent declarations of the ancient fathers; it is necessary that this affair should be inquired into and examined, whether it is matter of fact or no. And this will be the subject of this Fourth Part. But, before we enter upon it, let the following things be observed: 1. That the writings of the best of men, of the most early antiquity, and of the greatest learning and piety, cannot be admitted by us as the rule and standard of our faith. These, with us, are only the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament: to these we appeal, and by these only can we be determined. If therefore the oracles of God are on our side; if we have the concurrent suffrage and the frequent and express declarations of the holy prophets, of Christ and his apostles, we have the best and earliest antiquity for us, and are free, and far enough from the charge of novelty. It is of no great moment with us, what such who lived nearest to the times of the apostles say, unless what they say agrees with their words and doctrines. It would indeed be a matter of concern to us, should no footsteps, no traces of the doctrines we contend for, appear in the works of the first Christian writers, and would oblige us to lament their early departure from the faith once delivered to the saints. And, indeed, 2. It is easy to observe, and he must be a stranger to antiquity and church history that does not know, how very early after the apostles' days, corruptions, both in doctrine and practice, were brought into the Christian church. . . .”
5. On the other hand, it is the covenantalists’ methodology that is defective whenever they appeal to the traditions or history or creeds themselves as a convenient part (subordinate authority) of their proof to oppose the dispensation of the Mystery. If any doctrine requires an appeal to history/tradition (as it does for some arguments for baptism or the “traditional” Lord’s supper) as “proof” or even to “disprove” anything in any degree, then that is the leaven of Roman Catholicism. If any amount of history/tradition is required to “prove” a doctrine (without which the doctrine could not be proved) then that is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture – and this is by the very meaning of the word sufficient – and is also an admission that the doctrine is a tradition of men!
6. In this case the tradition becomes the lens through which the Bible is interpreted, (by which its “meaning” is obtained). Tradition/history then becomes the norm and in fact is made superior to Scripture.
7. This is the sufficient rebuttal of those who deny the truth of the dispensation of the mystery based on: “Who else in history has believed this?” The very question is a not-so-subtle denial of sola Scriptura.
E. Biblical proofs of sufficiency:
1. Isaiah 8:20. The point here is that the Scriptures alone are the gauge, the absolute standard that is to judge experience. This verse also shows that the Scriptures are understandable in their own right and need nothing external. If they did, then they would not constitute an independent absolute norm and standard.
2. 2 Tim. 3:16,17: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
3. 1 Cor. 4:6: “... that in us you-all might learn the not beyond what is written” (Greek text).
F. Biblical examples of sufficiency:
1. Luke 24:25-27. An example, in regard to Christ himself. The point is that the Scriptures were the gauge of truth. Here comes Jesus of Nazareth and He says He is the Christ. How was anyone supposed to know if He spoke the truth? Well let us hear what the Scripture itself says (Cf. John 5:39): “25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”
a. This passage shows that the defect is with man and within his heart and mind (fools and slow of heart). THERE IS NO DEFECT IN THE SCRIPTURES.
b. Christ took them to task with these strong words because every man has the capacity to understand the scriptures. Man has the capacity because man is not an irrational beast; fallen man is still the imago Dei). Those who do not understand have a heart problem and a mind problem. The word for "fools" is the Greek word "anoeetoi" (rough transliteration) which means "unintelligent" or "mindless" __ meaning they lacked knowledge. Christ never disparaged knowledge of the truth because that is the standard by which one can judge false teaching and false doctrine, and thus not be led astray. "The people perish for lack of knowledge." (Cf. Hosea 4:6)
c. Christ said we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind. In the Luke passage, the Lord says they were responsible for knowing what the Scriptures said before He explained it to them. It is true that He then explained it to them, but the context shows they should have had prior knowledge and understanding before He explained it.
d. Point: A gauge of truth can be a standard only if it is understandable and prior to that which it is to verify or confirm.
e. Summary Point: The Scriptures were an independent testimony that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ.
2. Rom. 16:17,18: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”
a. This passage shows that at the time that Paul wrote this, the Romans had already learned the truth of Paul’s gospel, and were able to thus detect those who were causing schisms in the Body, and thus avoid them.
b. The ones who were being led astray were those who were simple-minded; they didn’t know the doctrine. This passage shows that the doctrine was complete; no one was to add anything. This finality of the doctrine is also taught in:
3. Gal 1:8,9: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
a. The point is that what Paul had delivered to the Galatians was it, it was final. Paul is speaking hypothetically in regard to himself to underscore this very finality.
4. Eph. 6:12-17: “12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of the righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of the peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of the faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of the salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” (Greek text)
a. The point here is that the panoply includes the Sword of the Spirit = Word of God, and this is what enables the saint to stand. No traditions here!
b. We are to use all of Scripture – but note we are to take up the shield of the faith. That is not personal belief, but it is specifically the objective One Faith = doctrine for the Body of Christ.
5. Col. 2:8, seq. states that those who deny the seven ones will be a prey to those who add the traditions of men. (Of course, the Roman Catholic Church thinks that what they add are not of men. Well, that may well be true because they are ultimately from Satan! Especially, prayers to angels – it isn’t Gabriel who’s on the listening end! To defeat the Romanists here, we need to go beyond the doctrine of sola Scriptura and show how all of their doctrine denies the seven Ones which is the Spirit-given outline for doctrinal unity of the Body of Christ. Not the false Roman Catholic Church notion of ecumenism, that being in their clutches is “unity”)
6. Dispensation of the Mystery given to Paul to complete the Word of God. Col. 1:26,27:Thus the Word is complete, no new revelation past close of “canon.”
G. The Scriptures are objectively true, coherent, non-contradictory.
1. There is no subjectivity introduced by virtue of man.
2. The Scriptures are objective, they carry their own proof within them. They are the words of God Who cannot lie.
3. Man is proximate point in the recognition of Scriptures’ truth and the regenerate mind recognizes and is assured of the Scriptures’ coherence and the fact that they are non-contradictory. But the law of non-contradiction is not an abstract autonomous principle that legislates reality. Reason is a tool that the regenerate mind employs to recognize God’s truth in the Word. Reason itself is from God, and the regenerate mind is the gift of God. On the other hand, the unregenerate mind ought to recognize the objective truth of God’s Word but, of course, he doesn’t – instead he uses his God-given intellect and use of reason to defy God.
4. This brings us to the contrast of Assurance and proof:
a. The practical problem of where to start, or, as stated by Van Til, is what is called the proximate starting point in knowledge. The proximate starting point is the individual himself to whom we declare the truth, and how that individual sees the truth of the Scriptures __ this is "proof" in the sense of assurance. This "proof" or "seeing" is the result of regeneration, (but this understanding/acceptance by the individual is something different than the cogency, clarity, and self_attesting character of the Word itself).
b. No one is personally assured of the truth of Scripture except by regeneration (recall the natural man receives not the things of God. 1 Cor. 2:14).
5. Illustration of the idea of self attesting: All analogies are imperfect, and the following one has the added defect of appealing to something that a pagan Platonist takes as "self evidencing" (i.e. Plato's heaven of ideas, mathematics, though we would hasten to point out that a theorem of mathematics isn't in Plato's heaven, it is a reflection of God Himself), but it can be used to illustrate the idea of "self attesting." Take the Pythagorean theorem. A Platonist mathematician will take this as absolutely, objectively true, something that exists "out there," independent of whether it is recognized, accepted or understood (whereas, in contradistinction, your average grade_school student, who has not yet seen the "proof," would not know it is true – though it is true regardless of whether the school child "knows" it to be true). So when one speaks of proof in this sense, one is thinking of demonstration of the truth so that someone else can "see" it. Yet, the "objectivity" of the theorem corresponds to what we mean when we say the Scriptures are self attesting. The Scripture has its mark_of_truth in and of itself, just as does the Pythagorean theorem. Of course there is a "difference in degree" between the Scriptures and the math theorem, but not a "difference in kind."
H. Determination of the "Canon."
1. Romanists claim the Scriptures are received by the authority of the Church. Trades on confusion in the term “tradition.” No one denies that the writings have been “handed-on.” This is so by definition as they have to be copied from the original autographs. This is “tradition” in the Biblical sense. What was passed on were the “graphas” (writings). This does not imply nor give any credence to the idea of additional oral (non-written) revelation. What Rome means by “tradition” is their extra revelations plus their interpretation. Col. 1:25,26 defeats Rome as a developing channel of new revelation.
2. Biblical view: early believers were just faithful middle men, attended by God’s providence. The books that we have by God’s superintendence are sufficient for all doctrine and practice.
3. Correct understanding of Paul's gospel, the dispensation of the mystery, settles, out-of-hand, some problems of "determination" of the canon. Understanding of dispensation of the Mystery strengthens arguments, e.g:
a. James and Revelation. Difficulties disappear when one understands these books are written to another household of God's elect.
(1) Revelation was questioned on doctrinal grounds by those who were amillennial.
(2) James was questioned by Martin Luther on doctrinal grounds.
(3) In either case, correct understanding of the dispensational framework in Scripture would place Revelation and James in their correct dispensational settings and remove objections.
b. Seven Ones give criterion for the certain rejection of Shepard of Hermas (was considered for inclusion): Shepard of Hermas is a late writing, contains charismatic and angelic revelations. Conclusion: Reject. Paul says:
(1) Revelation of the mystery completed the Scriptures. Paul's epistles are the final revelation.
(2) Charismatic baptisms have ceased. The Body has one baptism, not many baptisms.
(3) No angelic mediators for the Body. The Body has One Lord, One God, One Spirit, therefore no angelic supervisors.
c. Aside: By the same reasoning we know with certainty that Islam, and for instance Mormonism, are false.
(1) Koran claims to be new revelation and thereby denies completion of Scripture.
(2) Mohammed claims he received revelation through Gabriel.
4. These are all matters of Scripture’s "self attestation" and internal testimony.
V. Criteria of True Doctrinal Frameworks
A. Simplicity Criterion : Simplest framework accommodating all the pertinent Biblical data , esp. "difficult" data. Cf. 2 Tim 2:15 (Greek Text ) 'Plow with straight furrows .' Reminder: Biblical data obtained through normative hermeneutic ( above). No unnecessary complications introduced.
B. Clarity Criterion : Framework giving greatest clarity to all pertinent Biblical data . Truth explains, answers all old questions, raises and answers new questions, esp. "sticky " questions. Cf. Eph 1:17-20 True frameworks yield epignosis ("detailed knowledge"). Reminder: Biblical data obtained through normative hermeneutic .
C. Alternate Criteria
1. Elegance, Beauty . Cf. Col 2:3; 1 Cor 3:9; Rom 10:15 truth is treasured.
2. Efficiency. Cf. God has the attribute of efficiency (for God has attributes of wisdom, power; also follows since God's actions are efficient).
D. Corollary Principles
1. No {self} contradictions . Cf. Matt 12:25-26 ; 2 Cor 1: 7-20 ; James 1:8 ; etc.
2. No tautologous (or vacuous) frameworks or arguments. Cf. 2 Cor 10:12; John 5:31 ; 2 Cor 13:1 ; Matt 6:7 .
VI. Dispensation of the Mystery and sola Scriptura
A. Reviewing:
1. Scripture is sufficient. It alone (sola) generates doctrine and practice.
2. No historical works verify Scripture or Biblical doctrine, rather Bible judges history and doctrine.
3. Dispensation of the Mystery given to Paul to complete Word of God. Col. 1:26,27. Paul’s epistles contain the Law of Christ for the Body.
4. Implications for the Body of Christ: the Body is non-ceremonial; no rituals, no ordinances.
B. Traditional arguments and tradition as source of doctrine for Lord’s supper:
1. Note that these are ad hominem arguments to show the incoherence of the “traditional arguments.” Arguments from tradition/history are arbitrary and selective. Assumes God has seen fit to preserve exhaustively the writings of fallible men to vindicate His Word! (This is a subtle denial of sola Scriptura. The writings of men become candidate set of filters to interpret the Word.) (Violates Biblical Principle of God self-attestation: “Let God be true and every man a liar...” Rom. 3:4).
2. Point: It is inconsistent to appeal to history selectively.
3. It is generally granted (regardless of “denomination”) that originally the supper was a meal.
a. Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, Study Edition. (Harper-Collins, 1981) (For which a nihil obstat was granted), p.760: “As we have just seen the Eucharist, or Lord’s supper, was celebrated in the beginning as a meal. ... During the second and third century the meal disappeared.” (emph. in orig.)
(1) Note this admission is not fatal to Catholicism because they “the church” have the self-proclaimed authority to be the arbiter of tradition, new revelation. They can choose whatsoever they like!
(2) Protestants who appeal to historical Christianity or tradition are in a tough spot.
b. Harper-Collins Dictionary of Religion (Harper San Francisco, 1995): Eucharist, p.345: “It is generally agreed that these celebrations at first included a complete evening meal, with each participant bringing food to share with the others.”
c. These observations of McBrien are supported by the letter of Pliny to Trajan: “They [the Christians examined by Pliny] also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error accounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery, to commit no breach of trust and not to deny a deposit when called upon to restore it. After this ceremony it had been their custom to disperse and reassemble later to take food of an ordinary, harmless kind; but they had in fact given up this practice since my edict, issued on your instructions, which banned all political societies. ...” Observations:
(1) Only practice of Christians is a morning service and a later fellowship meal. No special ablutions (baptisms) or ritual abstract communion.
(2) The Christians gave up the meal when the Emperor for political reasons banned all “political” societies. (It was typical to have a meal at such meetings, much like toast-masters today.) By external appearances the Christians would have been construed as a political meeting if they continued the fellowship meals.
(3) The point is if God had commanded such as binding and if these early Christians had so understood it as binding, they would not have stopped. They would have gone to their deaths, as indeed they did, as the record shows by emphatically not recanting any of their beliefs and then making sacrifice to the Emperor.
d. These observations also supported by Epistle to Diognetes. The unknown author, after having described the distinguishing rites of the pagans and Jews, states that Christians are not distinguished from other men by any customs.
4. Summary of the historical record: Before the mithraic corruption, the Christians were participating in a regular fellowship meal. The fellowship meal was not obligatory and for various reasons (such as Trajan’s edict, for example) fell out of practice and ultimately it was completely replaced by the truncated mithraic nibble of cracker and sip of wine or juice that we see today. A practice inherited by Protestants through the channel of Roman Catholicism.
5. Continued popularity of the “traditional ceremony” is due to reading the current practice back into the Biblical text. We will see in session six, that Biblical text does not support the idea of a particular ceremony utilizing two distinguished “elements.”
6. Points: Knowledge of Dispensation of the Mystery leads one to see non-ceremonial practice of the Body => leads one to recognize the essential ceremonial format of the “traditional” Lord’s supper => leads one to search Scriptures to test the doctrine. Scripture alone then leads one to see there is no ceremonial/ritual Lord’s supper for the Body. Back to sola Scriptura. Traditional view relies on a traditional practice that is not in the Biblical text. History itself defeats the historical view. Again back to sola Scriptura.
7. From Scripture:
a. Luke gives no historical details of practice in Acts. Despite the fact that he does give historical details, among many others, such as the images of Castor and Pollux on Paul’s ship in Acts. Why such details and not on such an important (creedal) matter of doctrine and practice as the Lord’s supper?
b. Traditional approach makes the Protestant minister (or deacons) into priests (mediators). They administer the cup and the bread. Why doesn’t Paul give instructions on how to perform the rite? Unless 1 Cor. 11 is the sole passage and is self contained? We defer comment on 1 Corinthians to session 6.
c. Further, Paul gives no instructions in the Pastoral epistles to the elders for administering so-called sacraments of baptism and Lord’s supper. Rather he gives instructions on qualifications, and the responsibilities of teaching and ruling the assembly.
(1) Points: Paul’s instructions are perfectly understandable in light of the seven Ones, and the non-ceremonial nature of the Body of Christ.
(2) The absence of baptismal instructions is clear from the fact that the Body has but one baptism (excludes water).
(3) The absence of instructions on a ritual snack are also clear, there is none! No mention of Lord’s supper in the seven Ones either.
8. Negatively: If one appeals to history, one has the embarrassment that all early occurrences in the so-called “fathers” teach transubstantiation. Example: Justin Martyr’s First Apology.
9. Lord’s Supper and Inerrancy.
a. How many times was bread broken? How many cups were there?
b. Traditional approach says Christ instituted one cup and one bread breaking, and further, the ritual must consist of precisely one cup and one breaking of bread. In fact many make this a creedal issue.
c. However, if this is so then the gospels are contradictory and Scripture is not inerrant. We have Judas identified as the betrayer both before and after this supposedly one bread breaking –- a contradiction.
d. In the same way we recognize the harmony of the gospels in regard to:
(1) The temptation of Christ. Luke gives the beginning of the story and Matthew gives the end to avoid a contradiction in the order of the temptations.
(2) Sermons on the mount / plain: To avoid a contradiction in the ordering of these sermons and the choosing of the twelve apostles; in this case Matthew gives the beginning and Luke the end of the story.
(3) Other examples: the thieves on the crosses, the cock crowings and Peter's denials, etc.
e. Further, this can’t be so because we know that the last supper was a Passover, consisting of four cups and two breakings of bread. More details in session 6.
10. It is universally acknowledged that a shared meal represents covenant unity/fellowship.
a. Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, Study Edition. (Harper-Collins, 1981) (For which a nihil obstat was granted), p.758: “The meal which is the object of these reports was only the last in along series of daily meals which Jesus shared with his disciples. In the Oriental world of his day, a shared meal was always a sign of peace, trust, and communality.”
b. We will give more Biblical details in session 6.
VII. Conclusion
A. Sola Scriptura is the Scripture’s self-attested standard for all doctrine and practice.
B. Scripture understood by the normative hermeneutic leads to the recognition of:
1. Three households of God’s elect: Gentiles, Jews and Body of Christ
2. The distinctiveness of the dispensation of the Mystery, and Paul’s epistles as the doctrine and practice for the Body.
3. The coherence of Scripture and a coherent doctrinal framework.