I would first like to make a personal remark on this before I paste my essay. I am basing the name of this essay off of an anti-Catholic book, Roman Catholicism in the Light of Scripture by F.C.H. Dreyer and E. Weller, which was given to me by a past friend after hearing that I’d decided to become Catholic. It was a rather enjoyable read, seeing the two of them struggle so terribly. I particularly liked the chapter on Scripture, which failed to mention this exact problem as I am bringing to light, and the chapter on the papacy, which failed to define for the reader exactly how the Catholic Church defines infallibility (without error). Do enjoy my work!
Sola Scriptura in the Light of Scripture
Before I study this this doctrine in Scripture, I would like to begin with definitions of terms;
Scripture is the infallible, inspired writings found in the Bible.
Infallible is to be without error, however, it does not necessarily to teach all that is correct.
Sola Scriptura, or ‘Scripture only,’ states that the only standard by which a doctrine can be judged is whether it is stated in Scripture. However, there have been several other definitions, so I would like to look at these also, but first, this one;
James White defines it, without any substantiation, as;
“Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.” ( http://vintage.aomin.org/SS.html)
I shall now deal with this first definition with references to Scripture, or, at times, their lack thereof to substantiate or contradict these claims.
“Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.” We can see the consequence of this; if we accept Sola Scriptura as true, then we must accept that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. Of course, this definition ought to be in Scripture, if it’s the only infallible rule that can provide this standard, right?
Well, it isn’t in Scripture. Nowhere does Scripture lead us to believe that only Scripture is infallible. So, to be able to arrive at the definition White gave would require a fallible definer.
It seems he makes up for this problem with his next sentence; “The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace.” So, this seems to cover that one would be forced to reach this conclusion by only fallible methods. However, this part also is not supported by Scripture, and must also be reached by fallible means. It says it is right because it is right; it is entirely circular.
He repeats his first sentence, and goes on; “This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures.” So, now his definition appears to be defeating itself; it has called that all rules, or standards, which must include this one definition he is giving, is inferior to Scripture, and subject to correction by the same. Could this definition be corrected? Yes, but we will get to that after we finish elaborating on White’s definition.
He goes on; “The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church.” A repetition of what he had already said twice, seeming to condemn his definition further.
Lastly, he states; “It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.” Now, I am not denying that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17), however, I do not see how the conclusion that Scripture is of necessity the highest authority is reached, since the passage does not say that.
What does the passage say? “All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Nowhere does this passage say that only Scripture is profitable to teach. While it does say a man may be perfect, furnished to every good work, it does not say that a man may be perfect, furnished with every doctrine. It simply isn’t there, and to say it is saying that would be eisegisis, the reading into Scripture what one already believes.
I would also like to deal with White’s claim that only Scripture is infallible. This would seem to be in contradiction with several verses from Scripture;
“That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) How can that which is the ‘pillar and ground of truth’ not be infallible? The only reasonable interpretation could be that the Church truly is the pillar and ground of truth, as Scripture explicitly says.
Of course, White has a ‘refutation’ to this, but nowhere do I see it possible to reach the conclusion he makes; “Notice the context of v. 15: it is that of the local church, in which you have elders and deacons.” (http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=108) However, there is nothing pointing to the idea that Paul is only talking about the local church; it seems he is talking about the entire Church in this verse, his prior verses speaking about how churches should be ordered. In v. 15, it says ‘the’ Church, not ‘a’ church.
Another passage that appears to be in plain contradiction to White’s assertion that “This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures,” and “The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church,” would be Jesus’ commandment to go to the Church in case of dispute; “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee: take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church: let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Matthew 18:15-17)
Now, this passage is saying that the Church is the ultimate authority, not Scripture, which is in plain contradiction to White’s definition of the Scripture being the ultimate authority. Why is this in contradiction to the first quote of the last paragraph? Because, if there is a dispute about Scripture between two, then one must go to the Church as the final authority on the interpretation of the Scripture. This would mean that the Church is the final interpreter of Scripture, not Scripture.
If we follow White’s assertion of the local church being what Paul is talking about, then what is to prevent one to simply find a church that agrees with the person? The conclusion must be that there is a true Church, and there may be other ‘churches’ that are not truly part of the Church. (We would call these ‘churches’ ecclesiastical communities, due to their resemblance of the Church.)
I could find nothing by James on the Scripture I just implemented.
There seems to be another conundrum in sufficiency; Jesus command that all things He commanded be observed (Matthew 28:20), yet we know that Scripture does not contain all that He taught; “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.” (John 21:25) It is apparent that John believed no one had written down everything Jesus did or taught, nor would ever. In fact, the first thing the apostles had done was teach without the New Testament. This must mean, then, that Sola Scriptura was not the doctrine of the apostles, and one who follows Sola Scriptura is not following what the apostles taught, which is in contradiction to Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:20. White, in saying “It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture,” would also be in contradiction to the teachings of the apostles.
The rule that what the apostles taught must be adhered to is quite explicitly said; “ Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:14) Paul is commanding that what was taught orally and in writing must be followed, which would then mean that the rule of faith would be this Scripture and this oral teaching, or the teaching of the apostles. The rule of faith, then, would be what the apostles taught, or, Tradition.
This Tradition is further proved in Scriptures in Luke 1:1-4, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 3:10, and many other passages in these veins.
As a final look at White’s poorly conceived, and contra-Scriptural definition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the question remains; how do we know what is Scripture without some other-Scriptural verification?
Let us now look at this definition;
Wikipedia defines it as;
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (“Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
I would like to deal with this general definition from the end to the beginning, starting with the last point; Scripture is sufficient of itself and ultimate authority of Christian doctrine. Now, Scripture being the ‘ultimate authority’ has already been has already been shown anti-Scriptural (remember Matthew 18:17), but, this claim of sufficiency is new from White’s definition.
Of course, within Scripture there is no claim of self-sufficiency, and already I have shown how that apostolic teaching Tradition is what was historically accepted as the standard of faith. Also, the claim can be shown as self-defeating; if Scripture is self-sufficient, then there must be a claim to this self-sufficiency within what is sufficient, otherwise, the claim is coming from outside that which is being claimed as sufficient, so then it must be concluded that Scripture itself is not sufficient.
The next claim in receding order is that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ What does this mean? I did a search and found this definition; “what the Spirit’s telling us through Scripture is unlocked by, tested by, qualified by, and balanced by, the rest of Scripture. This does not force us to treat any part of Scripture as if it were without human failings or error; the only way people of today can really trust the truth of something like that is if they discover it for themselves. No part of Scripture is slighted or ignored — but no part of Scripture stands on its own.” (http://www.spirithome.com/scriptur.html) For instance, this principle could be applied through cross-referencing similar verses to get the most meaning from each of them, or from analyzing a certain interpretation against the interpretation of a different verse to seek continuity. It is essentially a rehash of 2 Timothy 3:16, but in following the conclusion of Sola Scriptura being applied back to Scripture. This part of the definition I realize is a conclusion based on the preceding premise of Sola Scriptura, so I need not waste time on this part.
The next claim is that Scripture is clear, perspicuous. This seems a bit more idealistic than realistic, if we were to look into this premise in practice, with the test verse Matthew 16:18, an oft widely arrayed interpretation to be found with the least bit of searching;
Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical) —
“‘You are Peter,’ Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter’s ‘You are the Christ’ (16:16). He then plays on Simon’s nickname, ‘Peter,’ which is roughly the English ‘Rocky’: Peter is ‘rocky,’ and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)….Protestants…have sometimes argued that Peter’s name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)….But by Jesus’ day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter’s nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply ‘rock.’ Further, Jesus does not say, ‘You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church’….the copulative kai almost always means ‘and’…. Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21….Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the ‘rock’ because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)….” (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427) (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm)
In contrast with;
Nicholos Gene Poma —
“So, it is Peter’s statement that Jesus is the Christ, the Son God, upon which the church is built, not upon the man Peter. If you wish to understand the idea of what the rock is and how it pertains to God in scripture, use your Bible software, or even do a search in an online Bible for the term, “Rock,” I am sure it will be very enlightening for you. The Rock is referred to as God, savior, my strength, my refuge, my shield; this clearly indicates that the Rock is indeed God. Peter understood this to be true and he was blessed by God with this knowledge.” (http://www.helium.com/items/581211-bible-study-matthew-1618)
We can see that this ideal is hardly realistic, as both of these Protestants used the exact same method and came up with completely different conclusions. Scripture is hardly clear, considering human nature is inherently biased to prove one’s self correct first, and as a secondary check for error to improve correctness.
Lastly, the first claim [sic] that the Bible is self-authenticating is misleading. Calvin’s method appears based on emotional or intellectual conviction, however, neither of these alone can prove that Scripture is what it is without some other authority guarded from error telling us Scripture is what it is;
Calvin–
“The same Spirit, therefore, who spoke by the mouth of the prophets, must penetrate our hearts, in order to convince us that they faithfully delivered the message with which they were divinely entrusted… Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin’s_view_of_Scripture#Authority)
Luther’s method of proving the Scriptures infallible appears to be not at all, in these two quotes;
“I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers has erred. All other writers, however they may have distinguished themselves in holiness or in doctrine, I read in this way I evaluate what they say, not on the basis that they themselves believe that a thing is true, but only insofar as they are able to convince me by the authority of the canonical books or by clear reason.” (WA, 2. 618. Contra malignum Iohannis Eccii iudicium … Martini Lutheri defensio 11519).
“Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe in neither the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures that I have adduced, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God; and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.” (WA, 7, 836-38.) (http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther03.html)
It appears that Luther accepted the canon merely by his own authority, which falls into the exact same problem as with White’s definition; if there can’t be outside authority, then where did the authority come to define the Bible, or its purpose? Luther’s belief in his own authority outside of Scripture is testified to his removal of the deuterocanon/apocrypha, and his attempted removal of James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelations, apparently because they contained passages quite plainly in contradiction to his doctrine of sola fide.
So, what must be our conclusion? According to Wikipedia’s definition of Sola Scriptura, it is unsubstantial and contradictory to Scriptures, and in practice leads to the division of the Protestant ecclesial community.
Finally, the last definition;
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey defines it as;
The Protestant position, and my position, is that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand. (http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html)
Dr. Godfrey’s position here, apparently is in contradiction to the previous two definitions of Sola Scriptura, and appears to be a positing of Prima Scriptura, however, he calls it Sola Scriptura, so I will be working with it. (However, I will note that his position as the ‘Protestant’ position, being in contradiction to the other two Protestant definitions shows that even the doctrines on which Protestantism is based isn’t even agreed upon within Protestantism!)
First point of his definition; ‘all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible.’ Can this be substantiated?
Of course, this would bring us back to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Now, I am not going to deny what the Scripture tells us; “That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” However, this only substantiates that a man may be perfect to do good, but it does not say that he would be perfectly covered in the facets of faith, what immoralities should be avoided, etc.
Godfrey also takes this note of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and he has other Scripture to substantiate his claim of this doctrine, so why don’t we look at it?
First, he quotes Deuteronomy 31:9,12;
“And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it to the priests the sons of Levi who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the ancients of Israel. And the people being all assembled together, both men and women, children and strangers, that are within thy gates: that hearing they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and keep, and fulfill the all the words of this law.”
The context appears out of place for trying to support Sola Scriptura, for it seems this is only talking about the Law of Moses, ‘this’ law which is plainly mentioned. However, Godfrey goes on with Deuteronomy 32:46-47;
“And he said to them: Set your hearts on all the words, which I testify to you this day: which you shall command your children to observe and to do, and to fulfill all that is written in this law. For they are not commanded you in vain, but that every one should live in them: and that doing them you may continue a long time in the land whither you are going over the Jordan to possess it.”
After these two passages, Godfrey makes these three notes;
“1. The Word of which Moses spoke was written.
2. The people can and must listen to it and learn it.
3. In this Word they can find life.”
There appears to be error with Godfrey’s analysis. First, his use of the capitalized word ‘Word’ refers to Christ, which in John 1 is being translated from Greek Logos, which properly means the is. There is no reference within the given Scripture at which this use of the word Word can be substantiated, outside of some outside authority declaring Deuteronomy the Word. Second, the context of the passages is only referring to what Moses was writing, as what the Israelites should follow, not at all referencing to the Bible as we have it; that would be quite impossible.
The rest of Godfrey’s essay falls into irrepair following these false premises, eventually falling into vitriolic diatribes against ‘Roman’ apologists.
Godfrey’s definition is apparently painfully insufficient to describe Sola Scriptura. I must admit White’s or Wikipedia’s definition was much better.
Finally, I would like to apply the Scripture to the fruits of the practicing of Sola Scriptura;
“But prove all things: hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
What have been the fruits of Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura alone has given denominations, splinters, schisms, and several distinct, exclusive, and contradictory theologies, ranging on nearly ever possible doctrine, from that of baptism, communion, Scripture, the Church, justification, salvation, Hell, Heaven, the parousia, even to Jesus’ divinity!
I would hardly call this good.
Read Full Post »
Amtheomusings 