SOLA SCRIPTURA
By: Larryboy
Larryboy (hereafter just Larry) writes:
The doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scriptures for the establishment of
doctrine is one which Reformation Christians cherish. It is also the one most
often attacked and derided by Roman Catholic apologists. I am convinced that
this is, primarily due to a false conception of the doctrine. Very often Roman
Catholics and others will proceed with an erroneous idea about this key
doctrine, thus falling into the use of what amounts to a straw man argument.
Scott responds:
Larry, Catholics do not deny the "sufficiency" of Scripture, we deny that
the Scriptures are the "sole" source of knowledge and teaching. We challenge
that the Scriptures are not the "sola regula fide" and if they were, then
somewhere within the text of Scripture (by necessity) such a statement would
be made. Since no such statement exists - sola scriptura becomes a self-refuting
proposition.
Larry continues:
For example, the Canon is often brought forward as evidence that Sola Scriptura
cannot be true. The argument runs like this: If the Scriptures are solely
authoritative, and if they are infallible, they must be infallible in every
respect. Thus the table of contents must be complete and authoritative as well.
The problems with this kind of reasoning should be obvious. First of all, Sola
Scriptura says nothing about the extent of Scripture. It speaks volumes about
the content of Scripture, but it says nothing at all about the table of
contents.
Scott responds:
Well, I understand the argument, and it is a valid one. How do you know
what the Canon of Sacred Scripture even is? The Scriptures are silent about
just which books should be included in the canon - so the very compilation of
the books into one "Bible" is evidence of an extra scriptura authority. As
for the Scriptures speaking volumes about the content of Scripture, do you
have any sources? It's easy to make the claim, can you support it?
It might be helpful at this point to offer a working definition of this key doctrine:
Sola Scriptura is the essential Reformation doctrine that
only the Scriptures have authority for the establishment of doctrine. The
implication is that there is no comparable authority other than Holy Writ. This
is in contradistinction to Roman Catholic claims that the teaching Magisterium
of that Church, as well as it’s “Sacred Tradition” also have infallible
authority.
Scott Responds:
You have stated it is "the" essential Reformation doctrine. Most if not all the
Innovators* would agree with you, or at least
include that as one of the "three legs" of their revolt. Again, the challenge
exists, IF the Scriptures are to be the "only" authority for the
establishment of doctrine, then where do we find that condition IN the
Scriptures? If it is not there (and it isn't) then it is an extra scriptura
doctrine itself - and by the statement of "sola scriptura" it must necessarily
be rejected. So, unless you can come up with the verse that says there is to
be no other source then you must reject sola scriptura.
*(I use this term because they did not
"reform" the Church, for the Church they used to belong to still exists
- rather, they formed "new" churches and preach a "different gospel").
Larry continues:
It might be helpful at this point to point out some of the
things Sola Scriptura is not:
Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible contains,
explicitly recorded, every essential doctrine of the Christian faith. In many
cases interpretation is necessary. The Westminster Confession calls this
"good and necessary inference". Doctrines like the Trinity and Sola
Scriptura itself for example are not explicitly stated in the Bible. This does
not mean that they are not true though. They are necessary deductions. There
are numerous other examples, but for now these will suffice.
Scott responds:
Regarding the Trinity, that is in the Scriptures, not the name itself, but the
teaching is there. A better example would be the Two Natures of Christ, or
the Two Wills of Christ. We don't find those in Scripture at all, yet this
is a "doctrine" that is widely accepted in Christianity, even by the
Innovators.
Larry, you've already gone extra scriptura! You freely admit that the concept
of "sola scriptura" is flawed! IF the Scriptures were the "sola
regula fide" then why do you need the Westminster Confession? This talk of
"necessary deductions" sounds a bit like doublespeak. It's like, "There is
no other authoritive source besides the Bible, but the Westminster Confession
is a necessary deduction." Huh?
Larry states:
This is in response to the common Roman charge that the
Bible contains no explicit statement to the effect that it is solely
authoritative, and for Sola Scriptura to be true, it would have to do so. Such
an objection springs from a faulty understanding of the doctrine.
Scott responds:
The common Protestant answer is, "Catholics just don't understand the teaching of
sola scriptura." Well, I'm dealing with your definition here Larry, and I have
dealt with James White's definition
on another web page (click on the preceding link).
If the Bible does not contain such a statement, and you're implying that there
are other "outside" sources of understanding things (like the Two Wills of Christ,
though your example was the Trinity). So, sola isn't sola anymore, there's
something added to this "sola" - and what was/is that other source? For the
definition of the Trinity and the Two Wills, we turn to the Church! The Church
"canonized" or made "dogma" these teachings in the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon.
Larry continues:
Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is perfectly
clear about everything it deals with to everyone who reads it. There is a
related doctrine, the Perspicuity of Scripture, but even this one does not mean
that the Bible is completely unobscure. The Bible contains many things which
are difficult to understand, but what it is necessary to know in order to be in
a right relationship with God is perfectly clear.
This is held in response to the Roman argument that those churches which hold
to this principle must be false since so many of them differ in their
interpretations of diverse passages. It is true that there are many points of
doctrine disagreed upon by Protestants, but it does not follow that these
churches are apostate. The Reformers, especially Luther, always distinguished
between essential doctrines and adiaphora or disputable points. The doctrines
which it is necessary to know and believe in order to be counted a member of
the Body of Christ are few but they are stringent; about other things we have
the right and wherewithal to disagree. The fact that we often do so with a lack
of charity does not militate against the perspicuity or authority of Scripture
so much as against the lack of love of some of those who subscribe to these
beliefs.
Scott responds:
But that's precisely the point Larry! IF Scripture was so clear on
vital points then we wouldn't have denominations that declare other
denominations are wrong - to the point of even being unsaved! Even within
denominations we have discrepencies. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
(WELS) will not accept fellow "Lutherans" from the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America (ELCA) to their Holy Communion. My own family switched from the
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and had to go through and "interview" with
the WELS pastor before we would be admitted to Communion. Why? If Scripture
is so "clear" on vital points, why would fellow "Lutherans" keep each other
from Communion? Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration - Baptists don't.
Do you need more examples? The point is that even though Larry makes this
claim of clarity on vital points, reality doesn't play out that way.
Sola Scriptura does not mean that every individual
Christian should be free to interpret the Bible as he or she sees fit. This is
a very common canard, that “private interpretation” creates ecclesial chaos and
that the existing denominationalism rampant in Protestantism can be traced
directly to this. The problem for evangelicals with this is that it is, to a
very real degree, true. But it is true because even Protestants have not always
been true to the principle. It is simply a case of our freedom getting the
better of us. The fact remains that among Reformation Christians the principle
of Sola Scriptura entails a certain intellectual submission to both history and
to the called ministry. Christian laypeople ought not interpret the Bible for
themselves. Somehow even saying this sounds heretical to my Protestant ears.
This shows how ingrained the idea of “private interpretation” really is. The
fact is that we educate, call, ordain and compensate the Pastorate for this
task, it’s their job, not ours.
Scott interjects:
So, now we have Scriptures plus the ordained Pastorate. So much for "sola."
Larry continues:
None of this means that we don’t read, study and learn the Scriptures. Indeed,
woe betide us if we should ever neglect this duty. But it should always be
recalled that we are ever to do so within the bosom of the church and with an
eye to her tradition.
Did I say “tradition”? I can hear the Protestants gasp as they read this. Yes,
I said tradition, small “t” tradition. I do not mean an authority equal to
Scripture, but rather an authority (if it can be called that) which is based
solely in Scripture and which derives whatever usefulness it has therefrom.
Scott replies:
Well, I believe we're back to doublespeak again. But let's keep count here,
now we have Scripture + ordained pastorate + tradition.
So we're way beyond "sola." And of course, Larry's defintion here is completely
in line with Catholic (big "T") Tradition. Catholics are free to read and even
"interpret" Scripture, so long as their conclusions are in line with the Teaching
Magisterium of the Church. This is where Luther went wrong, he went against
the Magisterium.
Larry states:
Larry continues:
Sola Scriptura is not only misunderstood by Catholics.
Many Evangelicals have a defective conception of it. A lot of Protestant
Christians hold a view of it which stems from a more wooden and literal view of
inspiration than is held by most Confessional Protestants. Thus their view of
Scripture’s inerrancy leads to a hermeneutic which admits of very little
variance in interpretation. For some the idea that Scripture is verbally
inspired is held without reference to linguistics. Thus, the AV1611 for many is
given the practical status of being itself inspired.
Scott responds:
Like I mentioned earlier, and will assert here, "sola scriptura" is a moving
target. Ask Larryboy what he believes it is, then ask another Protestant,
then ask another - which definition is right? Will the real sola scriptura
please stand up!?
Along with this is the jettisoning of context as the guiding factor in the
determination of the meaning assigned to any text. Thus passages which have to
do with specific historical or personal events and entities are taken out of
context and applied willy nilly to present day and current individuals. This is
dangerous for many reasons, not the least of which is that the great doctrine
of Sola Scriptura is obscured and twisted thereby.
Scott states:
Um, we agree! This "great doctrine" is obscured into oblivion.
Sola Scriptura can be simply defined, but it’s
ramifications are far-reaching and it’s use can get a little complicated. One
of the reasons Sola Scriptura is complicated in practice is that acceptance of
this principle leads inevitably to acceptance of many others. You cannot, for
example affirm Sola Scriptura without consequently taking position on the
relation of Law to Gospel. You cannot affirm Sola Scriptura without also having
a fairly detailed ecclesiology. So, it is not simply an affirmation. It is a
doctrinal foundation, as the Reformers called it, the norming norm.
Scott replies:
We've added a couple more things to our count...
What good is a foundation that is alone? Think about it for a moment. If you
have the doctrine of sola scriptura equating to a foundation then essentially
we could say "sola foundation." Now, does that make sense? A foundation is not
used, shall we say useless, unless something is built on it... or "added" to it.
Logic alone would demand that "scriptura alone" is not a tenable position.
Scripture + ordained pastorate + tradition + detailed ecclesiology
Hang on, a "detailed ecclesiology?" Larry, that's a "Church" with "Structure!"
So what is Luther's or Calvin's justification for leaving that
"detailed ecclesiology?"
Larry concludes:
Scott interjects:
Larry's conclusion continues:
Scott interjects again:
Larry finishes with:
The importance of this doctrine cannot be overstated. It
is absolutely key. It is the very foundation of all we believe, teach and
confess as evangelicals.
The Scriptural foundation of the Church is not the Scriptures at all, but the
Apostles (Rev. 21:14). Yes, "men" were the foundation, not a collection of books that would
not be assembled the way you and I are familiar with for nearly 400 years. One
would think if sola scriptura were the "foundational doctrine" of the Christian
faith, it wouldn't have taken nearly half a millenia to come up with the canon
of Scripture! And again, where did we get this "canon?" The Councils of
Carthage and Hippo stated the canon that we now use today. Not one single
Catholic Bible was produced after that time that varied from that canon. Yes,
St. Jerome argued against the deuterocanonicals, (typically erroneously called
"the Apocrypha" by many), but when push came to shove, they were included in
his translation of the Vulgate.
It would serve well those Roman Catholics seeking
dialogue with Protestants to learn what it really is and eschew the
proliferation of caricatures which so often mars such dialogue.
Again, it's hard to hit a moving target. Those of us seeking this dialog truly
do our best to answer the definition of sola scriptura that is presented to us.
It's just not the same everytime we answer because the Protestants we confront
have different definitions (as even you affirm in this thesis).
Correspondingly, it behooves those of us who would give the Scriptures
authoritative supremacy today to have a right understanding of the doctrine, to
endeavor always to use it correctly, and to teach it to others accurately.
And Scott concludes with:
So, what we have presented here from Larry is a "sola" that really isn't "sola."
I rest my case.
So, we've added again to our count:
Scripture + ordained pastorate + tradition + detailed ecclesiology + teachers
On top of all the other things "necessary" for "sola" scriptura, we have to have
teachers that teach others accurately. The Bible Alone is not sufficient to teach
others accurately, we need teachers to do this.