Today I read a volume by Reformed Presbyterian author W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture (Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002). It is a response to Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (San Goleta, Calif.: Queenship, 1997), which is perhaps the best book critiquing sola scriptura on the market.
Overall, I found Crampton’s book to be full of eisegesis and logical fallacies, making it perhaps one of, if not the worst, book defending what is the formal doctrine of the Reformation (it gives James White’s Scripture Alone [2004] a run for the money in terms of presenting lousy argumentation for this doctrine). The reader wanting a better (even if still very flawed) defence of sola scriptura should read Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Mosco, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001) instead.
In this post, I will interact with some of Crampton’s arguments in favour of sola scriptura.
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15
Amazingly, Crampton, in a number of places, tries to argue that the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15, supports sola scriptura:
And very significant is the Acts 15 passage concerning the Jerusalem council. When the apostles and elders met to discuss and make a judgment regarding the theological matter of circumcision and its necessity with regard to salvation, they did not quote inspired tradition, neither did they turn to a bishop or people for a decision on the matter. And even though the council was made up in part of apostles, the delegates believed themselves compelled to cite scripture (Amos 9:11-12) to settle the matter (Acts 15:15-16). The conclusion reached by the council was based on the fact that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit [the author of Amos 9:11-12] and to us" (verse 32). Scripture and Scripture alone rendered the decision binding on the local churches (Acts 16:4). (p. 52)
[I]n acts 15 we read about the Jerusalem council. when the apostles and the elders met to discuss and make a judgment concerning the theological matter of circumcision and its necessity with regard to salvation, their appeal was made to Scripture alone (Amos 9:11-12), and not to the tradition of the Church Magisterium. (p. 151)
[W]hen the final decision was made, it was based on the fact that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us" (Acts 15:28). But the Holy Spirit reference here is to the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, that is, from Amos 9:11-12 and Leviticus 17:14, found in Acts 15:16-17, 29. That is also why "it seemed good . . . to us." And what is why the decision was binding on the churches (Acts 16:4). (p. 163)
There are many problems with this understanding of Acts 15.
Firstly, even within the Acts of the Apostles, we see that the Apostles did not operate with the belief that Scripture was formally sufficient. Instead, we see that it is the authorised leadership of the Church that makes a doctrinal decision, even if scant or actually no meaningful biblical evidence is available to them (from the historical-grammatical method of exegesis). For instance, in Acts 1:20, we read:
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick (επισκοπη [office]) let another take.
If one examines this verse, Peter is using two texts from the Psalter—Psa 69:25 and 109:8. However, nothing in these two verses says anything about Judas, apostolic succession, or the continuation of the need to have twelve apostles. If one reads these texts in their context, David is talking about people and events in his own day. Psa 69, David is addressing the sinful people of his time who had betrayed him and how he pleads for God to bring about judgement (v.25). Psa 109 is about the court of David where David says that, once an officer in his court has been removed, another will take his place.
Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine. Another potent example would be the case of the use of Amos 9:11 (LXX) in Acts 15 by James. The text is used as Old Testament support for the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
Furthermore, Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.
Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.
This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.
Notwithstanding, Acts 15:7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in this speech he invokes the name of God to back up his single authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole Church. In verse 7 he says that God choose him, singularly, to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation - that men are saved by grace, not works of law, and only after that, does James stand up, as bishop of Jerusalem, and cite Amos 9:11-12. There is nothing in Acts 15 to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture.
Furthermore, Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.
Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.
This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.
Notwithstanding, Acts 15:7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in this speech he invokes the name of God to back up his single authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole Church. In verse 7 he says that God choose him, singularly, to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation - that men are saved by grace, not works of law, and only after that, does James stand up, as bishop of Jerusalem, and cite Amos 9:11-12. There is nothing in Acts 15 to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture.
Acts 17:11 and the Bereans
Did Jesus Accept Authoritative Tradition?
Throughout his ministry, Christ never appealed to tradition as authoritative; he never appealed to the church as authoritative; and every time he mentioned tradition, it was only to denounce it. (p. 83)
This flies in the face of many texts, including:
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matt 23:1-3)
Here, Jesus commands His followers to listen to, and accept, the authoritative (oral as well as written) teachings and interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. As one commentary stated:
Moses’ seat . . . [is] a metaphor for teaching authority; cf. the professor’s “chair.” . . . ‘whatever they teach you’ refers to their reading of Scripture, ‘they do’ to Pharisaic doctrine and practice. (W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 387)
Notice the following from the Midrash Rabbah:
They made for him [Moses] a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing. (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)Simply put, the "Chair of Moses" was the teaching authority of the synagogue. Note the following points:
a) On the local level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular city's synagogue (e.g. Corinth or Rome).
b) On the regional level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular region (e.g. Rabbi Akiba at Jamnia).
c) On the universal level, the "Chair of Moses" was actually held by the High Priest in Jerusalem. This is more than clear from John 11:49-52 and from Acts 23:2-5, where Paul backs down because the law defined the High Priest as "the ruler of thy people."
For the Jews of the Diaspora, one could not be said to be part of Israel if he rejected the rightful authority of Jerusalem. Such a position would make oneself a Samaritan. :-) Indeed, the Jewish historian Josephus says how the Hellenistic Jews before the fall of the theocracy in Palestine looked reverently toward Jerusalem and favored religious currents coming from it: "Doubts were referred there for solution" (Josephus, Contra Apion 1.30-36).
We also know that the Jews of the Dispersion turned to Jerusalem for their Scriptures (2 Maccabees 2.13-15) and for its translation [Est 11.1 [Vulgate]; 10.31 [LXX]). Such were appeals to the ultimate “Chair of Moses" (Matt 23:1-3)--the High Priest and the Sanhedrin itself.
Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong, has a good paper on the “Chair of Moses” in response to James White, showing that Matt 23 is further proof that sola scriptura is anti-biblical.
Did Early Christians Accept Sola Scriptura?
On pp. 138-39, Crampton tries to argue that Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, and later, on p. 159 Jerome, held to sola scriptura! To see how way out in left field he is in terms of patristic scholarship, let us consider Clement of Rome.
Apostolic Succession
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. (1 Clement 42:1-4)
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of ths, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed the in their ministry. We are of onion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from their ministry. (1 Clement 44:1-3)
Appeal to authoritative tradition outside of Scripture to settle ecclesiastical disputes:
We are not only writing these things to you, beloved, for your admonition, but also to remind ourselves; for we are in the same arena, and the same struggle is before us. Wherefore let us put aside empty and vain cares, and let us come to the glorious and venerable rule of our tradition (παραδοσις) (1 Clement 7:1-2 [Kirsopp Lake's translation]).
Such sentiments are hardly in line with the claim Clement of Rome held to sola scriptura! Furthermore, Clement of Rome held to baptismal regeneration and rejected sola fide, so he is hardly a theological friend to Crampton!
The Eternal Word of God is not the Bible
On p. 156, Crampton writes the following:
[T]here is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm 119:89, 152, 160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God written. If one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would not have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and to read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had not destroyed God's Word. God's Word is eternal propositions that find expression in written statements.
This is one of a few places where I agree with Crampton, at least to some degree. Such comments serve as a great response to some of his co-religionists who claim texts such as Isa 40:8 is in conflict with the Latter-day Saint view of the Bible (see the eighth Article of Faith); I discussed this issue here.
Conclusion
As stated previously, this is perhaps one of the worst defenses of sola scriptura I have thus far encountered. Many more instances of Crampton’s eisegesis could be multiplied, but I think the examples given above speak for themselves. I do hope that open-minded Evangelicals reading this and similar posts will reconsider their commitment to sola scriptura as it is a tradition, not of God, but of man.