Sometimes I wonder, does anyone read my articles or are
they like long forgotten magazines lost in the attic of the Internet – always
around but of little use other than to collect cyber-dust?
Recently, while in a state of curious boredom, I did a google search on my name and I came up with the following article by a Mr. Daniel Hill. Since he was so kind as to quote and critique my arguments, I thought I would return the favor.
The black type is the original piece by Mr. Hill and the blue type is my response. Enjoy and thanks Mr. Hill for reading my material and taking the time to quote and challenge it. Apparently there is life out on the Internet!
Critique of Mr. Sparkes
article: Sola Scriptura
By Daniel Hill
The problem with the teaching that Scripture is not self
interpreting is that the people who teach that, is that if Scripture is not
self interpreting, that no one will make mistakes in understanding any of the
verses. In your thought process that one will be guided by the Holy Spirit
automatically allowing each person who reads the person to understand perfectly
each verse is an unscriptural teaching. Scripture is clear to whom those God
allows it to be clear, and he doesn't make the entire thing understandable to
everyone who reads it (those who haven’t yet been taken into heaven). The
bible teaches that God allows those he will save to understand how to be saved
at a certain point in their lives. Where does
the Bible teach this? What verse…it is easy to say anything, but where is the
substantiation? That of all the things in Scripture is the one
thing all saved Christians understand well. You
hope you are saved…but where is the assurance?
The old example comes to mind, “I know I aced that test!” You may very well have, but until you get
your grade you don’t really know.
Catholics, like other Christians can have a high sense of salvation, but
Paul clearly instructs us to run the race to the end for the hope of gaining
salvation (Heb. 12:1, 1 Cor. 9:23).
Therefore salvation is something we continually work toward and can
lose. We can never rest and assume we are saved otherwise Paul would not
instruct us to hope (Rom. 8:24, Titus 3:7). If I hope for a new car and wake up
to find it in my garage then I no longer hope for it…as I already have it. Therefore, why would Paul instruct us to hope
for salvation if we already have it?
The bible teaches that unbelievers can understand some parts of the bible with
the exception of how one gets saved. Really?
Again, where is this in the Bible? In addition, it appears you are saying there
are “exceptions to clearly understanding some parts of the Bible.” Therefore,
you agree Scripture is not self-interpreting which in turn proves the Catholic
position. Unless you are
living a really secluded life anyone well knows that a non Christian can read,
"You shall not steal" and know what that means. There are many parts
of the bible one can read without needing someone to interpret it for you. How
can a person read the letters of Paul and not realize he is interpreting
Scripture so that the person reading his letters can understand Scripture? Of
course Scripture is self interpreting, to say, "Paul wasn't interpreting
Scripture," is to also say, "I am blind and if I read Paul's letters
God was blinding me." Paul is an apostle
and therefore recognized by the Catholic Church as an appointed authority,
teacher and an authorized interpreter of the Bible. Catholics have no problem
with recognized authority interpreting Scripture but we do have a problem when
non-recognized and self proclaimed teachers instruct against the Traditions of
Christianity. These men have no
authority but claim it anyway to the point where they can and have lead others
to destruction. Another problem
with those who deny that Scripture is not self interpreting and that you can
only know the correct interpretation if the high priests of the Catholic Church
give it to you, That was never taught or said.
Your ignorance of Catholicism diminishes your credibility. We use the teachings of the Church as she was
created by Jesus himself and her teachings do not change. Priests hold these
teachings sacred and guard them. Because
they are the guardsmen of Scripture they have the tools to correctly pass on
that which was first taught by their earliest predecessors (i.e. Jesus and his
Apostles). Because the Priests have taught and continue to teach consistently,
Catholicism is the only unpolluted form of Christianity. For example
Catholicism is the only Christian religion today that still condemns birth control. All Christian sects condemned birth control
until the 1930’s and by the late 1960’s only the Catholic Church continued to
condemn it. Since you argue the bible is self interpreting what caused your
church to change its mind on birth control?
You had nearly 2000 years of consistent teaching and yet birth control
is no longer considered a taboo.
Additionally you can not argue convincingly whether or not birth control
is acceptable using the Bible alone. The argument for or against birth control
must use sources outside the Bible. Thus, a definitive answer on such a
controversial subject can not be resolved unless God spells it out or appoints
someone who can spell it out with authority. Only a divinely approved authority
can extrapolate definitive Truths of Scripture especially when the issue isn’t
spelled out in black and white terms, such as birth control, monogamy, God
being one in three persons, what books belong in the Bible, purgatory,
etcetera, etcetera. Peter was divinely appointed by Jesus to be the leader of
the Church Jesus himself established (Mt 16:19). Peter was given the “keys to
the kingdom” by Jesus Christ and thus he and only those he entrusts can “bind
and loosen”. Peter passed his authority
onto his successors and today we call his successors “Pope”. There are other
trustees found in the Catholic Church as well and they are collectively known
as the magisterium. Therefore, since the
Catholic Church condemns birth control, the use of birth control is a sin
whether you accept that teaching or not as you have no divinely appointed
authority within your non-Catholic hierarchy.
is that what the high priests say need
no interpretation. Why? If they answer, "Because God will allow you to
understand," than why can't God allow anyone to understand what Scripture
is saying without the priests? Your phrase,
“Because God will allow you to understand,” is a non-Catholic response. A Catholic would not respond that way and
therefore your argument has no foundation.
Paul says in Colossians 1:9, "For this reason, since
the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God
to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and
understanding." Amen. This is best achieved
through reception of the Sacraments and the infallible teachings found inside
the Catholic Church.
1 Corinthians 12:7-8: says, "Now to each one the manifestation of the
Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit
the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same
Spirit" Amen, but what is your point? This does not prove your argument or even
give it any credence.
Proverbs 2:1-6 says, "My son, if you accept my words and store up my
commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to
understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding,
and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure,
then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.
For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and
understanding." Amen. Jesus is the head of
the Church and the Church is the body. The mouth speaks for the body and the
body is the Holy Catholic Church (Eph 5:23).
James 1:5 says, "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives
generously without finding fault, and it will be given to him." Amen. I did this and God lead me to His Church.
Notice James 1:5 teaches God will give you wisdom if you pray to him for it. It
does not say you must get it your wisdom, knowledge, or understanding from the
Catholic Church. Nor does he say from Television
Evangelicals, UFO visitors, the National Enquirer or even the Bible alone so
what is your point?
Proverbs 2:6 says, "For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come
knowledge and understanding." You quoted
this already. See above.
Ecclesiastes 2:26 says, "To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom,
knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner, he gives the task of gathering and
storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God." Your use of this passage is confusing. Are you trying to say if I please God I’ll be
rich? Or does it mean all wealthy men
are sinners and if I please God He will make me rich whereupon I can not stay
rich as now God considers me a sinner? J
If the Bible is self-interpreting and clear then why the
confusion? The answer is because God confuses those whom he does not wish to
come to salvation. This is a really strange
position. According to the Bible God wishes everyone to be saved, (2 Pet. 3:9,
Jn. 3:17) yet you argue (without substantiation) that God deliberately confuses
people. Once more, since you do not have a divinely appointed authority to
interpret Scripture you are doomed to make errors in your interpretation. People also delude themselves and confuse
themselves. People also do not cry aloud
for understanding and look for it as if it were silver or search for it as if
it were hidden treasure. People do not seek God with their whole heart, or
people often read some Scripture and don't read the part or parts of Scripture
that explain the rest. Some people don't even know how to read. I once read on
someone's website, "Here is another problem for the sola Scriptura theory.
What if I can't read? What if I can't read Greek or Hebrew? I therefore have to
trust the interpretations of a fallible human or learn ancient Greek and Hebrew
and trust my fallible interpretation." This Catholic is ironically half
disproving his own Catholic Church's teaching. I say half because if he had
included that they could not hear Scripture than he would be fully saying
without realizing it, that if there are Catholics who can't read or hear then
they must rely on the fallible teachings of the priests of the Catholic Church.
This shows the confusion Catholics are in. Mr.
Hill is taking my words out of context.
The point of the argument is that “if” you must rely on the Bible alone
then you should not wholly trust translated interpretations. Point in fact, shortly after the printing
press was developed an errant English version of the Bible was produced. It is
now famously known as the “Murderers’ Bible” because it misquoted the 10
commandments to read, “Thou shalt kill.”
This is an obvious mistake, but what about the ones less obvious? Some new and approved translations attempt to
“neuter” the male references in Scripture in order to make the Bible
“politically correct.” Words like “mankind”
are changed to “humanity”. On the
surface this appears to be fine, but in the case of Old Testament prophecies
(Isaiah) changing the gender reference can change the meaning and thus in some
cases the argument for Jesus divinity is diluted. Therefore if you advocate the
“Bible Alone” you have to be a Scripture Scholar in order to ensure the
languages are not only properly translated, but their original meanings are
properly translated as well. Catholics teach priests are not fallible
when giving divinely guided interpretations of Scripture (Mr. Hill is in error on this point. Catholics have never
believed or taught this.) yet
they also teach they (priests) can
mess up, what they don't teach is that everything requires an interpretation
including what the priests say is God's word or what it means. The question should be to everyone interpreting
Scripture, how do you know your interpretation is correct? It logically follows that it takes the divine
or a divinely appointed interpreter to correctly interpret the divinely
inspired. Mr. Hill seems to argue God wants us to be confused, but he doesn’t
substantiate his point with reasons either from Scripture or any tradition
other than his own. According to
Catholic theology you cannot know what the correct interpretation of Scripture
is because you do not have the ability to interpret Scripture correctly, Mr. Hill again misrepresents Catholic teaching. The
Catholic Church does not and never has taught this. Catholics are encouraged to
study the Bible, but alas, many do not. Mr. Hill obviously has not seriously
studied Catholicism and is therefore not in a position to criticize it. and you are fallible in interpreting anything,
this also includes your interpretation of what the priest tells you is the
correct interpretation of Scripture. For the non-Catholic saved Christian
however, we thankfully have God to allow us to have the correct interpretations
of many parts of Scripture. The difference is
that the Catholic has all the parts of Scripture correctly interpreted and not
just many. This is not an arrogant boast. It
is the acknowledgement of Christ’s fulfilled promise to “be with us to the end
of days” (Mt. 28:20) and to not leave us as orphans. He promised to send us the Advocate who would
lead us the fullness of Truth (Jn. 14:16, Lk. 13:19). All of this is realized in the Church of His
creation. We are just lucky enough to be a part of it. It is by God’s grace
alone that I am Catholic. The Bible Mr. Hill rests his faith upon was put
together by the very Church he challenges. Were it not for the Catholic Church
Mr. Hill would not be Christian. So what if you can't read Scripture, do you
solely have to rely on another person's interpretation as this Catholic
believes you MUST do if you can't read? No.
I also met a Catholic who told me that in the ancient times when the Catholic
Church didn't exist, that there were no bible tracts explaining how to be saved
or bibles around, and that it was the Holy Spirit that gave you knowledge of
what to do to be saved. He forgot (as did the other one I quoted) either that
the Scriptures were written down, or that Scriptures were read allowed to
people in groups, just as the Catholic Church did for many years. Mr. Hill doesn’t seem to realize there wasn’t a New
Testament for nearly 400 years after Christ ascended into heaven and therefore
the only Scripture was the Old Testament which is somewhat silent on Christian
salvation unless you have someone in authority to teach you. He also errors in
his implication that the Catholic Church no longer reads Scripture to people in
groups. The Catholic Mass is full of
Scripture readings. If you attended daily Mass for three years straight you
would hear every verse of the Bible. No other Church comes close to sharing so
much of the Holy Scriptures with its people.
He also forgot that people have the ability to memorize
things, including Scripture. The Catholic I quoted also argued that it is
pointless to have Pastors or Priests to interpret Scripture if you can
understand it yourself without anyone's help. But he forgot the bible does not
teach that anyone who wants to understand it will understand it if they don't
desire to truly know the will of God and don't want his will to be done, and
also, that God doesn't let everyone understand the whole thing immediately, at
least not yet. Mr. Hill admits we do need
something other than the Bible alone. I’m glad he sees my point, but his
argument does not invalidate it either. I doubt Mr. Hill means to imply this,
but if you study what he is saying then Mr. Hill seems to suggest you don’t
need pastors or priests if you truly desire to know the will of God and providing
God doesn’t deliberately confuse you.
The confusion, I assure you Mr. Hill, is not because of God. God allows some people to know and
understand more than others, and sometimes he allows these people to help
others know what he or she does, and sometimes, to understand that knowledge. Therefore the Protestant Reformation was wrong. The Bible
alone is not sufficient. (My point exactly!) According to Mr. Hill we need to
desire the will of God and sometimes depend on others for help. (Amen to that,
brother!)
Lastly, according to the Catholic Church's reasoning, even if a non Catholic
manages to interpret how to get saved correctly and teaches other people how to
get saved correctly, that person and none of the people he has preached to will
get to heaven. As usual, Mr. Hill does not
understand Catholicism and once more comes to an erroneous conclusion. Firstly, the Church does not condemn any one.
Secondly, the Church sometimes knows when a person is absolutely saved. These
people are called saints. Thirdly, the Church will never say who is in hell
because it is not her job to judge.
Fourthly, are there many non-Catholic Christians in heaven – absolutely
– of course! Finally, are all those who cry Jesus, Jesus saved? Well, the Lord himself says quite strongly
that not everyone who comes to the door and shouts my name will be saved (Mt.
7:21-7:28). According to the Catholic Church however there are
exceptions to that, to know about that exception read, "The Mathematics of Christian Theology". Don’t bother. Instead try reading the Catechism of the
Catholic Church or write us a question here at Pugetsoundcatholic.com
For those who wish to know, I quoted (but took out of context the writings of)
a Catholic named Douglas E. Sparkes.
By Daniel Hill