CHRISTOPHER’S APOLOGETIC ERRORS
Part 1, Sola Scriptura by Bill Jackson
Before we start to consider the various scriptures used by Christopher Wong, (Catholic apologist), we will try to consider some general aspects of his arguments. It will be noticed by Bible lovers that he employs much eisegesis (bringing an already formed theological premise to the Bible for verification) rather than exegesis (using the scripture as the primary source of any stated theology).
We will also note that, in his first (and perhaps most important) point he tries to attack sola scriptura (Scripture alone). If he is going to maintain the position that scripture is not enough to establish truth, logic demands that he should prove the existence and necessity of a body of Truth that supplies what scripture lacks. We will let you decide if he has done this.
He starts with John 21:25, But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
Although John 20:30 conveys a similar thought, no reference to it is made, probably because John 20:31 says but these are written. . . that believing ye might have life through His name.
Also, to be true to his argument, Wong would have to prove the “other books” as containing Catholic Tradition, which he fails to do. The Catholic Catechism (1994, paragraph 85) draws a distinction between the written Word of God and the form of Tradition, so that Tradition is not the books of John 21:25, but was, at least then, unwritten. The fact that Jesus did and said more than is recorded is beyond question; the truth is that God did not see fit to include everything in the Bible, but what is recorded is sufficient to give us salvation.
The next scripture he uses is 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Paul defines his spoken word, in Acts 26:22, as none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come, and “our epistle” is scripture.
Wong then cites 2 Timothy 2:2 (which is the motto of the CEC Literature Depot in the Philippines), And the things that thou hast heard of me (Old and New Testament scriptures) . . . the same commit thou to faithful men . . .
! Corinthians 11:2 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13 are used to maintain that “Paul speaks of oral tradition. The former mentions “ordinances” which apparently Mr Wong reads as “traditions.” The latter speaks of the Word of God which Mr. Wong, without any scriptural foundation, evidently calls “tradition.”
He says that Acts 2:42 proves “the early Christians followed apostolic tradition,” an assumption that has no credibility.
2 Peter 3:16 is used to assert that the “Bible (is) hard to understand, get(s) distorted.” This is true of they that are unlearned and unstable not of Spirit filled believers. Maybe Mr. Wong finds the Bible difficult, but that places him among the unlearned and unstable.
Both 2 John 12 and 3 John 13,14 show us that Mr Wong confuses apostolic teaching with Catholic tradition. There is absolutely nothing in either of these verses that says the face to face teaching of John was comparable to Roman tradition.
He is nearer the mark when he cites 2 Peter 1:20,21 but he should have used private interpretation instead of personal interpretation. Christians, guided by the Holy Spirit can validly interpret scripture. The fact that there are differences comes not from any uncertainty of the Holy Spirit, but that in non- essential matters, human error is possible. The guiltiest private interpreter is the Roman Catholic Church, which disregards the Holy Spirit in their efforts to prove their dogma.
Because the unsaved Ethiopian eunuch said he needed teaching to understand the Bible, Wong assumes we all need Tradition to help us. When Catholic Tradition teaches some oddities like the December 25 birth of Christ and the true image (vera icon) of Christ that was imposed on Veronica’s towel, we would rather rely on the Holy Spirit to explain scripture.
(Next section:Sola Fide)
