In this episode, Trent sits down with Protestant apologist Kelly Powers to discuss the coherence of Sola Scriptura.

Transcription:

Trent:

I was recently invited onto Kelly Powers this channel Berean perspective. He’s a Protestant apologist, and we had a really great discussion on the nature of Solas scriptura, and in particular my concerns that Solas Scriptura is an incoherent doctrine and ultimately an unworkable one for Protestantism. As I said, we had a great discussion and if you want to help us here on this channel at the Council of Trent to host similar discussions in person here in the studio, please consider supporting us@trenthornpodcast.com. So without further ado, here’s my discussion with Kelly Powers on solo scriptura.

Kelly:

This topic, I’ve been a Christian since the age of six. I was born again in 1977, so I’m hitting 53 this year. I don’t know how old you are. How were you at Trent? Where are you at your age?

Trent:

Whenever he asks me my age, I always ask them, how old do you think I am?

Kelly:

Well, you look younger than me. How’s that?

Trent:

Well, in a few months I’ll be 40.

Kelly:

Oh, really? Okay. Well, I’m glad I didn’t see you look colder.

Trent:

That’s okay. Yes. I’m always happy if somebody can pitch me as younger still, if I can still keep up with that.

Kelly:

Cool. Yeah, well, so the reason why I was sharing that is because when I became a Christian at a young age, both my parents were not Christians when I was born and they became Christians just a little after I was born a few years. And then when I was growing up in my teenage years, it really wasn’t a churchgoer, but I was a believer in Jesus Christ. And it wasn’t until after high school, I grew up in Las Vegas during my high school years, and I didn’t realize when I was a believer that a lot of my friends were either Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons or even Catholics. But a lot of us back in those days, we were what we were, but we weren’t always living it out. You kind of know what I mean by that. And so I had a friend of mine who I thought became a Christian just after high school, roughly 1991.

I graduated in 90, but he told me he became a Christian. We started going to going to church back in Las Vegas days and we’re both living on our own and within a few months he’s dating a girl. Didn’t know much about it. This is the short condensed version. We want to glory to death here. But all of a sudden he tells me one day on the phone, he says, Kelly, I became a Mormon. I was like, whoa, what happened here? He starts explaining to me about this book of Morman stuff. Joseph and I knew nothing. I mean, I knew basics of Christianity. I knew enough. We knew about the gospel, I knew enough about scripture and things like that, but I didn’t know much about other beliefs at that time, even though I heard the names. So long story short, met his girlfriend. She was like a fifth generation Mormon actually, who was in her heritage, actually went back to Brigham Young, and it was an interesting story.

So if I would’ve had that kind of opportunity today, it’d be even more interesting. But when I met her, nice girl, nice girl, but she started talking about praying and having the Holy Spirit confirm this and Holy Spirit confirmed that. But then we went to scripture as I’m sure me and you would definitely agree here, the things you were sharing definitely were not lining up with what we knew about the gospel and about the teachings of Jesus. And so long story short, that’s kind of where my journey kind of began with apologetics and learning about other groups and other beliefs and trying to ask people firsthand first questions, talk to them, get their sources. And so a lot of even my early nineties of my discipleship, I was part of Caver Chapel. I’m assuming you probably know a bit about Caver Chapel and people like Chuck Smith.

So that’s my heritage. And so I’ve always been kind of a guy that likes to really test things by scripture and examine it. So with what you said a minute ago, I’ve talked to people who are Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, other groups, and sometimes they’ll say things that they’ll say that God is leading them or teaching ’em such and such, but then it doesn’t line up with the word of God. So I’ll just kind of finish my statement here. For me as a Protestant, I’m open to learning from others and being eager to check things out. But when I say God’s word, like my final authority, what I’m saying is if it goes either against the word of God or doesn’t line up with the word of God, it for me causes a red flag. Now, I believe in tradition. There’s times that scripture talks about tradition. It can be a good thing. I’m not against tradition. I think my objection would be is if there’s things that are being taught that weren’t established or taught early on by say either Jesus or the Apostles, then that’s kind of where my red flag pops up.

Trent:

Okay. Well, I think that I’ve heard this before that scripture, for someone who believes in soul s scriptura, it is the final authority. And so I can see where you’re coming from a little bit here, especially in your experience with a friend who becomes Mormon. Because if you use, because Mormons don’t believe in solo scriptura either obviously, but there are other heretical groups that do. So I see the desire like, oh, well if you believe in soul scriptura, then you wouldn’t embrace Mormonism, for example, and all the extra things that it adds though at the same time, like I said before, there are others like the Jehovah’s Witnesses for example, I would say they practice sola scriptura because they do not. The Watchtower Bible and tracked society is infallible because the society has made so many failed predictions of the end of the world. Other things like that, they say it’s a guiding light, but it can be an error.

They would only say that for scripture. Same with Seventh Day Adventists. They say, Ellen White is not infallible, only scripture is. So even if you only treat scriptures infallible, you can end up in all different kinds of areas. So one thing I could agree with you on is if something goes against scripture, yeah, you shouldn’t believe that you shouldn’t believe something if it contradicts scripture. But you used a phrase when you were discussing and maybe you could unpack it more, you said, doesn’t line up to me if that’s different than goes against. That’s another way of saying I’m not going to believe in something that is not explicitly found in scripture. That is where I would have a host of problems with sola scriptura. But am I understanding you correctly? Maybe you going to unpack what you meant by the phrase doesn’t line up.

Kelly:

Yeah, sure. Just a quick note though, on just what you shared about say Jehovah Witnesses or seven-Day Adventist. So you’re correct when it comes to Jehovah Witnesses that they would look to God’s word as that authority, but they also look to the watchtower as their final authority as well, because the watchtower actually teaches that nobody can actually properly study or interpret the Bible without their guidance. So on the surface it has that appearance that yeah, they’ll be scripture alone or final authority if you will. But in their teachings and their books and their magazines, they actually teach that they are like the mother organization. And so you’re supposed to obey Jehovah’s the father and the mother organization. Same thing with the SDA. They would also adhere to scripture as well, but there’s also teachings of LNG White where she claims her teachings and writings are actually inspired just as much as scripture. So there will be people who from both groups will maybe go the extra step and go to scripture, but there will also be others who will be because of that fear, they’ll be in that control aspect. You know what I’m saying there,

Trent:

You could find another example would be one, I would say oneness. Pentecostals tend to hold solas scriptura, but they have a mistaken interpretation of scripture.

Kelly:

Yeah, that would be one I could definitely see with you or even say Church of Christ or other groups out there. Yeah, they’ll adhere to God’s word for sure that way. But there are many groups out there who claim to be Christians, but they adhere to additional sources for authority. Right? Sure. So to answer your question in regards to, you wrote it down, what did I say? You

Trent:

Said it doesn’t line up. Doesn’t line up. I hear what you mean by that.

Kelly:

Say for example, somebody is say King James only. Okay, there’s people, king James only. Now I may not agree with them on King James only, and I have friends who are King James people, but now if they’re King James, only to where say it doesn’t actually where it’s a salvation issue, they’re making it. There are people who claim, I’m sure you know this, that if you read a different version other than the King James Bible, you actually aren’t saved. I’ve talked to these kind of people before, so that obviously doesn’t line up with God’s word. Now they’re not claiming to be of a certain organization. There’s no prophet or prophetess, but this is a teaching that doesn’t line up with God’s word. So for me that would be an example.

Trent:

Okay. By lineup, do you just mean it’s not found in God’s word?

Kelly:

Well, so there are things that say traditions like we talked about this a minute ago, or at least briefly. I’m not against a tradition as long as it’s lining up with what we’d see at least guidance in scripture. As you said a minute ago, if it’s something that would go against something contrary, then for me that would definitely be a red flag. Does that make more sense?

Trent:

So I mean I could give different examples here. I’ve known Protestants, for example, who don’t celebrate Christmas because they would say that it doesn’t line up with scripture, not in the sense that it contradicts scripture, but scripture never says to do this. The early church didn’t celebrate Christmas for a very, very long time. And so they just don’t celebrate it. They don’t see it lining up a scripture. But I don’t think you would’ve a problem with

Kelly:

Celebrate. No. So that would be their belief, their tradition if you will, something they’re had hearing to If they went say a step farther though, and they said, well, now anyone who say celebrates Christmas is like disobedient, disobedient to God sinning or something like that, then that would probably go to where you’ve got caution and then you’ve got danger Will Robinson, if you know what I mean by that.

Trent:

Well, the difference there is permission to believe something and obliging someone to believe something. And when I’ve discussed this with other people, Gavin Orland and others, I think you might have a different standard of, I guess what if we put it this way that a person is free to believe something as long as it doesn’t contradict scripture, but they cannot impose an obligation on someone unless it is found in scripture.

Kelly:

That’s a pretty good statement.

Trent:

Alright. So for example, for me as a Catholic, based on how I read scripture in the church, fathers like Revelation 12, for example, under Solas script Torah, would I be permitted to believe Mary was assumed bodily into heaven? Because that idea doesn’t contradict anything in scripture. Even though other people might disagree about whether it’s found in scripture or church history, would I at least be under? So s scriptura permitted to believe that

Kelly:

From Revelation 12

Trent:

Or a host of other doctrines, but yeah, just that I believe Mary was assumed bodily into heaven based on Revelation 12 and early Christian history. I’m not saying other people have to believe it, but I’m saying that I choose to believe it is that permitted under sola scriptura. I’m not aware of anything in scripture that would contradict that belief.

Kelly:

Now we’re talking, just to be clear and clarification words, when you’re talking about ascended to heaven, we’re talking about the bodily assumption of memory, correct? Correct. Now that’s also considered a dogma in the Catholic church as well, right?

Trent:

But I’m bracketing it from just being a dogma from obliging it. I’m just saying if someone were to choose to believe it, so Eastern Orthodox for example, it’s not a dogma, but it’s a widespread belief that they call the dorm mission of Mary.

Kelly:

Correct? I gotcha. Yeah. Obviously my perspective looking at Revelation 12 or other scriptures on what’s called the assumption of Mary, I don’t find that with any biblical support, and even if you look at early church fathers the first few centuries, there’s no support of that as well. I know that came later, but I would say if someone had that view, I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to it. What I would be opposed to is there are the dogmas of the Catholic church, which if I’m correct, wasn’t it in 1950 that was made an actual dogma of the Catholic church, that one must actually believe in that.

Trent:

Yes.

Kelly:

And if I remember reading it, oh, go ahead. Go ahead.

Trent:

Yeah, so that is a dogma. It must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. It’s something that has been divinely revealed. Yeah.

Kelly:

And so if I remember reading it correctly, it actually even says if one has been properly informed and schooled and taught on this by people who are qualified and one rejects that they act or receive the wrath of God, correct?

Trent:

Right. It is a dogma of the faith that must be accepted just like Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist, Christ’s ascension into heaven, for example. So you’re correct, but I think it’s helpful to separate two things here, that the permission to believe things. I think that opens up a very wide field because I think in practice many Protestants will their objections to not just doctrine, but even to other people practicing it. So I’ve tried to pick examples where I think it’s very clear there’s no contrary evidence in scripture like Mary’s assumption into heaven or another

Kelly:

Example. Can I ask question before you just go too far? Just on the same example. So here’s where I think this is where what I shared earlier would be my objection because if someone said to me they believed that maybe because the Bible talks about John doesn’t really record, it actually says that he may have lived longer, and even the Mormons actually believed that he actually never Lily died. He believed that he was one who lived on as well. Having that view, I wouldn’t say that’s a salvation issue. I wouldn’t say that’s something that in scripture would say, Ooh, if someone believed that John never died anathema. But within the Catholic church, and again just kindly saying it, you brought it up, the assumption of Mary is kind of a big one when it comes to Catholicism and I have lots of family that’s Roman Catholic. And so I’ve grown up around this and being told because I actually reject that, I’ve actually been told I’m not a Christian, I’ve been told that I’m going to receive the wrath of God because I actually reject that. So my question to you on this topic is, well, why would I be concerned about the wrath of God as a salvation type issue when Jesus nor the apostles ever taught that?

Trent:

What I would say is that this gets back to a larger issue that will come up with sola scriptura, and that would be this question who decides which doctrines are obligatory for Christians and which are not? And I believe that sola scriptura cannot answer that question. So when it comes to the assumption of Mary, for example, I would say the strongest reason I have to believe Mary was assumed bodily into heaven is actually not scripture or early church history. Though I do believe they do provide evidence for the doctrine, for the dogma, rather the fact that the Catholic church is the church Jesus Christ established and it authoritatively teaches that this happened.

I have sufficient warrant to believe that it happened because of the church’s divine authority. And I would say that Christians do something similar with other historical beliefs. So I think many Christians would say, for example, even if there isn’t sufficient historical non-biblical historical evidence to prove the exodus happened, they would say, because the Bible has divine authority, I believe that it happened and that’s enough. Or that we all descended from Adam and Eve, even if geneticists pour mountains of evidence and old Earth and all this other stuff. I think a Christian doesn’t even have to get into that evidence. They could say, well, the Bible has divine authority. It says this happened. There was Adam and Eve and there was the fall and we came from them. So I’m going to believe that. And so I think a similar principle applies to the assumption of Mary. It’s going to take us back to more of a bedrock question. Who gets to decide which doctrines are obligatory or as you put it, a salvation issue and which are not? Is infant baptism Calvinism, young Earth creationism the Trinity Panel substitution? The problem I see is that scripture does not provide a mechanism to determine that scripture is silent about the difference between essential and secondary or obligatory and permissible doctrine. So that’s how I would approach the issue.

Kelly:

Yeah, I can hear where you’re coming from. So say we’re talking about, say Adam and Eve. Well, we know more than just Moses talks about this. Jesus talks about Adam and Eve. Paul talks about Adam and Eve. So it gives us confirmation of these types of things. Same thing with the Exodus. We see things that are written in the Psalms that point back to the things of the Exodus. And so even Paul in his writings points back to things during the time of Moses in one Corinthians 10 about things of the Exodus as well of them being delivered that Christ was the rock that was with them. So I would see scripture confirming scripture on those types of stories for sure. But isn’t

Trent:

That because that’s because scripture has divine authority behind it,

Kelly:

But you were just making the comment earlier, well, if we don’t have any say, unless I heard you wrong, some type of tangible evidence pertaining back to the Exodus, all that we have is divine scripture. Well, we have of course the rights of Moses, which we would both agree to be inspired. And then if it was only found, then sometimes there are some examples in scripture where it’s only found, say in one place. So that’s of course a step of faith. But if we’re on the same page adhering to scripture and it’s recorded, then that’s something that at least we can put our faith into and believe in. Back to what you mentioned a minute ago just to, I don’t want to beat a dead horse, whatever that saying is, but the issue of Mary is the doctrine of the immaculate conception, even back in the 18 54, 19 50, the assumption these are like 18, 19 centuries later, and I know church fathers better than I do, so I’m not even going to try to act like I do, but I’ve done enough research to look at least the apostolic fathers the first few centuries, and these doctrines were not taught early on.

So this is something that evolved over time. So my question is, when you’re asking me who decides? Well, Paul said in Ephesians two 20 that we are built upon the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus being the cornerstone. So if I’m looking to a doctrine essentially on say, the gospel of our eternal destination, I want to know what did Jesus teach on this topic, this exact doctrine? What did Paul or John or Peter, what did they teach right? Say you talked about the Trinity. Well, we know that Jesus said, unless you believe I am, you will die in your sins. He said, he’s the way, the truth in life. No one comes to the Father. We see he claims to be God. He talks about the trinity of the distinction of persons father, son, holy Spirit, John 14, 15 and 16. So we can at least establish, which again me and you have this agreement, the doctrine, the Trinity, even within the first few centuries, apostolic fathers way before any councils, way before any creeds taught the Trinity as well. So these are things can at least be collaborated. So that’s kind of what I would want to look to.

Trent:

Well, I think there’s two different standards here that are sort of opposed to each other. So for example, one might say, well, why should we, you’re saying, why do we trust the first sources on the assumption were let’s say four or 500 years later? Well, Jesus and Paul are speaking 1400 years after the Exodus, but I think you’re going to allow them because the writings that quote them have divine authority. So for example, let’s say so is it just because Jesus and Paul say this? Or is it because you already believe that scripture is inert and so it’s without error and we can trust what it says?

Kelly:

Well, both in a way. So when I became a Christian, like I mentioned earlier, when I became a Christian at age of six, I didn’t know all the ins and outs of the Trinity. I didn’t know all the outs of how we got the Bible. I didn’t know. I’ve grown in my faith over time through studying the word of God, of course being mentor. But as you can tell by my channel name Berea in perspective, like I mentioned just after high school, my way of perspective has been that of Act 17, 10, 11, where it says that those are in Berea, which I know this, I’m just saying it out loud. They were listening and they were eagerly hearing Paul teach. They were eager to hear, but they also went to the scriptures to see whether or not what was being stated or taught was true. So kind of like for a groundwork for me is that, look, I’m open to listening to anyone, whether they be Muslim, a Catholic, whoever, but as a believer in Jesus Christ, I’m going to go to the scriptures as Paul says, study, they show their self approved these scriptures.

I know that. And so if it lines up at least has something that’s tangible, something that I can grab onto something that has some of these pieces of the puzzle to work together. Then at leads to something I can hold onto where if someone says to me like going back originally to what I was sharing with you, even just with Mormons, not only do they reject solo script Torah, but their claim to fame that the whole thing of the premise of Joseph Smith is built upon his testimony t... Read more on Catholic.com