Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
Theological Questions
>
Sola Scriptura
date
newest »
newest »
It gets complicated: every religious sect and cult claims a piece of sola scripture. Even those silly Catholics.But the Protestant Reformation seems to own the title.
I'm reading lots of books on Innerancy and the high view of scripture. But none on Sola scriptura.
Hi Rod,What do you mean by "every religious sect and cult claims a piece of sola scripture. Even those silly Catholics?"
Hi David.If I remember correctly, isn't this one of the 5 principles of the Protestant Reformation, which basically states interpretation of the Bible by scripture alone? If so, wasn't published to fight against the religious leaders of the day from stating their opinions as biblically authoritative, rather than relying on scripture?
Just asking...
Hi Tyrone,Yes, it was one of the five Solas put forth by the Protestant Reformers. To me it seems to be a question of authority. That is, is authority to determine and teach Christian dogma derived from Sacred Scripture alone, or does it come from some other source?
Below is where I have found explicit formulations of the dogma of Sola Scriptura:
We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
(link: The Epitome of the Formula of Concord)
We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…Other writings of ancient or contemporary teachers, whatever their names may be, shall not be regarded as equal to Holy Scripture, but all of them together shall be subjected to it[.] (link: Jacob Andreae, ca. 1575)
We believe, teach and confess that the Gospel of the gracious justification of the sinner through faith in Jesus Christ is not only the chief doctrine of Holy Scripture and a basic presupposition for the interpretation of Scripture, but is the heart and center of our Christian faith and theology (material principle). We also believe, teach, and confess that only “the Word of God shall establish articles of faith” (SA, II, ii, 15), and that “the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged” (FC, Ep, Rule and Norm) (formal principle). The Gospel, which is the center of our theology, is the Gospel to which the Scriptures bear witness, while the Scriptures from which we derive our theology direct us steadfastly to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (link: A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod)
The primary guidelines for this group are a sincere love for the true God of the Bible and a commitment to relying on the Word of God (the Bible) as the ultimate authority for all spiritual truth.
(link: Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club)
David wrote: "Hi Tyrone,Yes, it was one of the five Solas put forth by the Protestant Reformers. To me it seems to be a question of authority. That is, is authority to determine and teach Christian dogma deriv..."
Thanks, David.
I agree with much of what you say; however, I try to keep things simple. I'm not much on dogma or relying on what others write as guidelines, edicts, etc. Please understand, I'm not saying that is what you do or are doing. I'm just saying that I rely on what the Bible says, in light of God's will as expressed by His actions and commandments, and measuring the author's intent within the context of the passage. There should be no conflict in knowledge, understanding and application.
Unfortunately, too many people have written many things to man's detriment using the Bible as support for conclusions that counter the intent and meaning of the Bible. History is replete with such examples ... slavery, the crusades, the holocaust, and politics. While I have, and still do, read and listen to supplementary information to gain further understanding, the responsibility for interpretation is mine since I bear the burden or reward for how I respond to the Word. Further, as a Sunday school teacher (and author), I examine the scriptures very carefully to understand the meaning of what I present to my students. The last thing I want to do is mislead them, knowing I will be held accountable for doing so. Admittedly, it takes some serious study, but I am a witness that God will bless those who endeavor to do so.
Given all that, I applaud you for seeking a higher understanding of how to interpret the meaning of God's Word.
May the Lord Richly Bless You!
Some groups would say "the Bible is everything" ... "but only WE can properly interpret it." Catholics and cults all make this claim. Kind of a side issue. Yet applicable.
Hi Tyrone,Thanks for your response.
Before I go further, I’d like to say that in my responses I do not have the intention to pick apart a statement or an argument for the sake of picking it apart—I am in search of the truth. As Socrates says in Plato’s Euthyphro: “The lover of inquiry must follow his beloved wherever it may lead him.” My aim is always truth and my guiding principle is charity. I am delighted whenever anyone chooses to accompany me on this journey.
In this case, I am interested in coming to an understanding of what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is and what the justification is for holding that doctrine to be authoritative for the Christian (as stated in my initial post, any book and/or website recommendations would be most welcome).
I think that the formulations I have provided above are adequate explanations of the doctrine. In short, for one to hold the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as true, one believes that the Bible (OT and NT) is the only and final source for Christian teaching (if this is not a correct formulation, I am eager to further refine it from the input of others).
After establishing the definition of Sola Scriptura, my task is to determine the justification for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In other words, why am I as a Christian obligated to hold that tenet as a fundamental teaching of Christianity?
You state, “I'm not much on dogma or relying on what others write as guidelines, edicts, etc.”
Dogma as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is 1a) something held as an established opinion; especially: a definite authoritative tenet, or 2) a doctrine or body of doctrine concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church (there are two more definitions, but they are not relevant to this discussion).
You then state, “I rely on what the Bible says, in light of God's will as expressed by His actions and commandments, and measuring the author's intent within the context of the passage. There should be no conflict in knowledge, understanding and application.”
It seems to me that you rely only on what the Bible says as to what Christianity is. You then make sure that all your interpretations are measured according to “the author's intent within the context of the passage.”
Is your belief for relying on the Bible merely your opinion, or is it a fundamental teaching of Christianity, i.e., a dogma of Christianity?
Rod wrote: "Some groups would say "the Bible is everything" ... "but only WE can properly interpret it." Catholics and cults all make this claim. Kind of a side issue. Yet applicable."
Hi Rod,
Right, so there are claims made on the proper way to interpret Sacred Scripture. Are any of those groups correct in their respective claims? That, however, is not my concern.
My concern is to learn what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is and what the justification is for holding the doctrine to be true.
As for recommending books on "Sola Scriptura", I can only think of one... the Bible... (I am sure there are others, but lets start with the foundation!)2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness :
17 That the man of God may be perfect , thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
___________________________________
Acts 17:11 - "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily , whether those things were so."
Hi Rob,Thanks for your response.
Please forgive me for repeating myself, but I like to be thorough in my investigations. So, I shall restate what Sola Scriptura is, and then my follow up question concerning it. I do this, so that there are no ambiguities about what I am asking.
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that states that the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is the only and final source for Christian teaching. Go here for where I found justification for my definition.
You supplied the following statements from the Bible as justification for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
and
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
I have two follow-up questions to your repsonse: 1) Is it feasable to justify the Bible’s authority as stated in Sola Scriptura from the Bible itself, and 2) Assuming that the answer to the first question is ‘yes,’ do the above verses provide the necessary justification for Sola Scriptura?
I’d like to come to an answer, and your response, for question #1 first, before we move to #2.
1) Is it feasable to justify the Bible’s authority as stated in Sola Scriptura from the Bible itself?
One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that Jesus is God, as it is stated in John 10:30—I and the Father are one—and in 2 Peter 1:1—To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
He has revealed who God is to humanity and how we are to be in relationship with him in order to save our souls and gain eternal life, as it is written in John 3:15—whoever believes in him may have eternal life. If we interpret 2 Tim 3:16-17, which is stated in the Bible, as justifiying the Bible’s sole authority concerning a person’s salvation, then the Bible is the only means by which we contemporary people can know who Jesus is. As a consequence, other religions either get some things right, but not the essentials, concerning God, or they get everything wrong.
There is, however, at least one religion in the world which also claims to have a divinely inspired text which guides the principles of the faith of those who adhere to it. That religion is Islam. Muslims believe that the Koran is the dictated words of God himself, as it is stated in the Koran in Surah 29:48—You never recited any Scripture before We revealed this one to you; you never wrote one down with your hand. The Koran also states how one is obligated to worship God, and if one does so, then one will receive a great reward from God (Surah 33:35). This obligation is outlined as the Five Pillars of Islam.
Adherants to Christianity and Islam both use their respective texts as establishing divine authority. Based on those respective claims, Christianity has no more authority than Islam, and vice versa. We would also have to give equal merit to any other text claiming divine inspiration.
Therefore, it is not feasable to justify the Bible’s authority from the Bible itself.
David wrote: "Therefore, it is not feasable to justify the Bible’s authority from the Bible itself..."My response: Your statement is incorrect. How can you give equal credibility to texts claiming divine inspiration, when they OPPOSE each other.
In the Bible, Jesus says: John 14:6 - "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
While Islam teaches that Jesus is NOT the Son of God nor is He God.
Equal merit??? How can two diametric opposites be viewed with equal merit?
Funnily enough : the Quran is totally dependent on the Bible to make sense of all its shards and snippets of stories. It is not a clear text in any way.
Same goes for the Book of Mormon - totally useless without the complete Bible to fill out the mess between "and it came to pass".Comparing Holy books is enlightening and hilarious. Makes you see just how amusing the bible really is.
David, I would recommend "The Inerant Word" by Macarthur. "Why We're Protestant" by Pickowicz. "Scripture Alone" by White. "God's Word Alone" by Barrett.These titles will do a great job at guiding your studies.
Great titles. I'll have to find some of those too!
Robert wrote: “Your statement is incorrect. How can you give equal credibility to texts claiming divine inspiration, when they OPPOSE each other[?]”Hi Robert, thank you for your response and your question.
The answer is that you cannot give equal credibility to two different texts, if both texts claim divine authority and both texts are in conflict with one another. If one is obligated to adhere to the teachings of a text that claims divinely given authority, and one is faced with two conflicting texts that respectively claim such authority, then logically one must choose one of those texts. You cannot adhere to both.
Your response has shown me that, in my above line of thinking, I made a logical leap without showing all of the logical steps in between and that I need to be more distinct in my use of the words “equal merit.” So, I thank you for that.
Please, allow me to further refine my argument from above (I shall also change its form for clarity):
My question was: Is it feasable to justify the Bible’s authority as stated in Sola Scriptura from the Bible itself?
I'd like to make my question more universal: Is it feasable to justify a text's authority from the text itself?
The line of argumentation below will attempt to answer the above question.
(1) If a text claims to be inspired by God, then it has universal authority. (This is a consequence of Sola Scriptura.)
(2) According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the Bible is inspired by God.
(3) The Bible has universal authority. (from 1 and 2)
(4) According to Surah 29:48, the Koran is inspired by God.
(5) The Koran has universal authority. (from 1 and 4)
(6) If a text has universal authority, then obligation to adhere to that text and its teaching does not only extend to its beleivers, but to all people.
(7) The obligation to adhere to the Bible and its teaching does not only extend to its believers, but to all people. (from 3 and 6)
(8) The obligation to adhere to the Koran and its teaching does not only extend to its believers, but to all people. (from 5 and 6)
(9) If a text with universal authority contradicts another text with universal authority, then one text is true and the other is false.
(10) The Bible has universal authority and the Koran has universal authority. (from 3 and 5)
(11) The Bible and the Koran contradict each other concerning the divinity and role of Jesus.
(12) Therefore, either the Bible is true and the Koran is false, or the Bible is false and the Koran is true. (from 9, 10, and 11)
(13) If a text is inspired by God, then it is true.
(14) If evidence for its truth is found in the text itself, then it is true (Another consequence of Sola Scriptura.)
(15) The Bible is true (from 13, 14, and 2)
(16) The Koran is true (from 13, 14, and 4)
(17) If two true texts claim contradictory statements, then one text is true and the other is false.
(18) The Bible is true and the Koran is true. (from 15 and 16)
(19) The Bible is true and the Koran is false, or the Bible is false and the Koran is true. (from 17, 18, and 11)
(20) (18) and (19) contradict each other.
Thank you for your patience, thus far.
I am, however, faced with a dilemma. I can continue the above line of thinking, but I will end up in an endless loop, with no answer in sight.
How do I determine if either the Bible or the Koran is true? (Or, any other text that might claim divine inspiration?)
If I rely on the principle that the truth of a text is found only in the text itself (this is what Sola Scriptura does), I end up in an endless loop when faced with other texts that make claims of authority and truth, but contradict on essential claims to the truth.
So, when I previsously said "equal merit," it applied to the beginning of an investigation towards determining the truth claims of different texts. Sola Scriptura shows me that, at the end of my investigation, all texts do not have equal merit, because there are at least two texts that contradict each other with thier respective fundamental truth claims, which you most helpfully pointed out.
So, if I rely exclusively on the texts themselves, I am left with not being able to find an answer to my question: Is it feasable to justify a text's authority from the text itself?
No, it is not feasable to justify a text's authority from the text itself.
Ben wrote: "David, I would recommend "The Inerant Word" by Macarthur. "Why We're Protestant" by Pickowicz. "Scripture Alone" by White. "God's Word Alone" by Barrett.These titles will do a great job at guidin..."
Hi Ben,
Thank you for the recommendations!
Peace,
David
Of course if:The Quran came 7 centuries after the Bible... Book of Mormon 18 centuries...
Buddhist and Hindu literature don't even come close in comparison to the Bible...
Sola Scriptura is how the church uses the authority of scripture - not atheists or cults. They can use Grimm's fairytales for all we care.
David wrote: " How do I determine if either the Bible or the Koran is true? (Or, any other text that might claim divine inspiration?)..."My response: There are of course many tests one can apply to sacred texts.
* Infallibility - if it is the Word of God - it will contain ZERO mistakes
* Historical accuracy - it will present a historically accurate text
* Consistency - the primary messages will be consistent throughout
* Doctrinal - There will not be contradictory doctrines
* Jesus ascribes the Old Testament as being the Word of God
etc.
This is a good book on what often passes for "sola scriptura" by a former Evangelical.Even if you don't agree with the author, who is a professor of Sociology, I believe, it may present some things to watch out for in terms of being too "sola scriptural."
https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Made-Imp...
If you are a true Christian...______________________
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness :
17 That the man of God may be perfect , thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
___________________________________
Acts 17:11 - "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily , whether those things were so."
Robert, Rod, and Peter: My responses to your posts are included below. I thank you in advance for reading them.Robert wrote: “If you are a true Christian [you will believe what is stated in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:11.]”
The concern in question is not so much what a Christian believes, but why a Christian ought to believe any particular doctrine. I am merely trying to get to a better understanding of what it means to believe the teachings of Christianity, because they are found in the Bible.
Robert’s most recent response can be restated as, “A Christian believes the teachings of Christianity, because they are in the Bible.” This is formally stated as the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Therefore, the questions I’m concerned with are:
(1) What is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, i.e., what does Sola Scriptura state?
(2) How is Sola Scriptura justified, i.e., why ought a Christian accept Sola Scriptura as a doctrine of the faith?
Forgive me for repeating myself. As I said, I like to be thorough, and I want to ensure that I do not stray from the topic at hand.
Concerning Question (1)
I shall restate the definition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I shall also give a more nuanced definition of Sola Scriptura. I do this because I think that it will be a more precise description of what the doctrine is. If there are any objections to this updated definition or if someone has a better definition, please do let me know.
My Original Definiton of Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that states that the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is the only and final source for Christian teaching.
My New Definition of Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that states that what is written in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is the only and final source for Christian teaching.
Concerning Question (2)
Robert provided the Bible passages 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:11 as evidence for justification of Sola Scriptura. That is, a Christian ought to accept Sola Scriptura as a doctrine of the faith because of what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:11 say. Combining the Bible passages, we can rephrase them this way:
“All scripture [,i.e., the Bible from which you are reading this verse,] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine[.]” Therefore, all Christians ought to search “the scriptures [,i.e., the Bible] daily[.]”
Robert’s response to Question (2) raised two more questions for me:
(3) Is it feasable to justify the Bible’s authority as stated in Sola Scriptura from the Bible itself?
(4) Assuming that the answer to question (3) is ‘yes,’ do 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:11 provide the necessary justification for Sola Scriptura?
Question (3) can be broken down this way:
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that states that all Christian doctrines must justified by what is written in the Bible. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be justified by what is written in the Bible. The doctrinal authority of the Bible must, therefore, be justified by what is written in the Bible. Hence, the question: Is it feasable to justify the Bible’s doctrinal authority from the Bible itself?
I then made question (3) more universal by formulating it this way:
(3b) Is it feasable to justify a text's authority from the text itself?
Logically, if a text in general can justify its own authority from itself, then the Bible is able to do so because it is a text. The opposite is also true. If a text is not able to justify its own authority from itself, then the Bible does not have the ability to justify its own authority.
Rod responded to my reformulation and analysis of question (3) by stating: “Sola Scriptura is how the church uses the authority of scripture - not atheists or cults. They can use Grimm's fairytales for all we care.”
Now, part of the Bible’s claim to authority is that it is universal. Meaning, that it is binding on all people, not just those who accept it to be true. It is universal, because God created all people. So, if there is a text that is inspired by God, it is authoritative for all. How does one know that the Bible is authoritative? One knows, because according to Sola Scriptura, it is written in the text itself.
If a person seeking a faith were to ask a Christian, “Why is Christianity true,” the Christian, according to Sola Scriptura, would have to answer that it is true because the Bible says it is. The seeker, however, would come across a variety of other faiths that claim theirs is true because their respective text says it is. This could also include a faith that came into existence last year along with its own text stating that God inspired it and that it is true.
Now, it would be an arbitrary dismissal of what another text says simply because Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that guides Christians for the Bible. Again, the Bible’s claim to authority is universal. So, when faced with a different text that too makes a universal claim to authority, one must judge the second text the same way one judges the Bible, i.e., from the text itself.
How does the seeker determine which faith is the true faith?
We’ve already concluded that if two texts claiming to be inspired by God contradict each other on an essential truth claim, then only one of those texts can be true. We also found that we run into a contradiction that gave us the following conclusion: No, it is not feasable to justify a text's authority from the text itself. That conclusion includes the Bible.
Rod also wrote in response with: “Of course if: The Quran came 7 centuries after the Bible... Book of Mormon 18 centuries... Buddhist and Hindu literature don't even come close in comparison to the Bible…”
Rod wasn’t clear in his meaning here, but I can surmise that he his judging a sacred text’s truthfulness by when it was written. A Jew could say that the Torah and the writings of the prophets are more true than the New Testament because they are older. Concerning Hindu literature, V. K. Subramanian considers them to be inpsired by God.
Regardless, Rod is now using a criterion that is not found in the Bible for judging the truthfulness and authority of the Bible.
Robert also wrote: “There are of course many tests one can apply to sacred texts.”
Tomorrow, I could sit down and write a text for my new religion that is infallible (because God inspired me to write it), historically accurate, consistent, and doctrinal. Jesus saying that the Old Testament is the Word of God does not matter for this investigation, for one has to believe that the Bible, wherein Jesus’ words are contained, has authority.
If I can't assume that the Bible has authority based on what it says about itself, since that will lead me into a contradiction, then Jesus' words based on the Bible in of itself do not have authority. Hence, I can't assume that the OT is authoritative simply because a text states that a man named Jesus said that they are.
Peter wrote: “I believe, it may present some things to watch out for in terms of being too "sola scriptural."
It seems that we need to add a qualification to our definition of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Here is an updated definiton with a qualification:
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that states that what is written in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is the only and final source for Christian teaching. This teaching holds except for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
I shall submit my next question:
(5) If the Bible is not the only and final source of Sola Scriptura, where does the doctrine derive its authority?
David wrote: "The concern in question is not so much what a Christian believes, but why a Chris..."My response: It appears that you have missed some of my posts. A recent addresses this question.
If you scroll up a few posts, you will see that I wrote the following...
______________________________
There are of course many tests one can apply to sacred texts.
* Infallibility - if it is the Word of God - it will contain ZERO mistakes
* Historical accuracy - it will present a historically accurate text
* Consistency - the primary messages will be consistent throughout
* Doctrinal - There will not be contradictory doctrines
* Jesus ascribes the Old Testament as being the Word of God
etc.
Robert wrote: "It appears that you have missed some of my posts. A recent addresses this question. If you scroll up a few posts, you will see that I wrote the following..."If you read towards the end of my post, you will find my response.
David wrote: "Robert wrote: "It appears that you have missed some of my posts. A recent addresses this question. If you scroll up a few posts, you will see that I wrote the following..."If you read towards the..."
I read all of it. Where do you address Jesus calling almost the entire OT as Scripture? Where is it addressed that Jesus appealed often to the OT in His teaching and corrections of people?
Sorry, I don't see that.
David wrote: "Robert wrote: "It appears that you have missed some of my posts. A recent addresses this question. If you scroll up a few posts, you will see that I wrote the following..."If you read towards the..."
My response: I am curious David, are you a Christian?
Robert wrote: "Sorry, I don't see that."Here it is copied and pasted from my post in question. I've added a few more sentences to further clarify my meaning regarding Jesus' statements about the Old Testament.
Robert also wrote: “There are of course many tests one can apply to sacred texts.”
Tomorrow, I could sit down and write a text for my new religion that is infallible (because God inspired me to write it), historically accurate, consistent, and doctrinal. Jesus saying that the Old Testament is the Word of God does not matter for this investigation, for one has to believe that the Bible, wherein Jesus’ words are contained, has authority.
If I can't assume that the Bible has authority based on what it says about itself, since that will lead me into a contradiction, then Jesus' words based on the Bible in of itself do not have authority. Hence, I can't assume that the OT is authoritative simply because a text states that a man named Jesus said that they are.
Robert wrote: "I am curious David, are you a Christian?"What I believe is irrelevant to the exploration here. I have not stated whether I believe the Bible to be authoritative or not.
I let my above line of argument speak for itself. If you have specific objections to any of the parts of my argument, I am more that happy to read and consider them.
That is the beauty of seeking truth in a sincere dialogue guided by charity.
David wrote: "What I believe is irrelevant to the exploration here..."My response: It is NOT irrelevant according to God.
1 Cor. 2:14
Above is my specific objection.
Robert wrote: “It is NOT irrelevant according to God. Cor. 2:14”According to Galatians 5:22-23:
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
I certainly hope to bear these ways of being.
Again, what I believe** is not at issue. The following questions I have posed are at issue:
(1) What is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?
Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that states that what is written in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is the only and final source for Christian teaching. (My formulation.)
(2) How is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura justified?
Sola Scriptura justified by the following passages from the Bible: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:11. (Robert’s response.)
(3) Is it feasible to justify a text's authority from the text itself? (my follow-up question to Robert’s response to Question 2)
No, it is not feasible. When one assumes that a text can prove it’s own authority, one is faced with a contradiction. Therefore, it is not even possible for the Bible to prove its own authority, since it is a text. (Conclusion from my earlier argument.)
My conclusions, thus far, are:
(4) Sola Scriptura, strictly interpreted, is contradictory. According to its own standard, proof of the authority of its teaching must be found in the text from which it comes. But, we have already proved that a text cannot prove its own authority from itself. Therefore, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura itself cannot come from the Bible. But Sola Scriptura demands that all Christian doctrines come from the Bible. Hence, we get a contradiction.
So, we add the qualification that Sola Scriptura is exempted from its own standard. The question then arises: If the Bible is not the only and final source of Sola Scriptura, where does the doctrine derive its authority?
(5) The Bible cannot prove its own authority from itself (see question 3 and answer above). This raises the question: Where does the Bible’s authority come from?
Since the Bible cannot prove its own authority, a passage from the Bible cannot be used to give itself justification. Some authority outside of and separate from the Bible must be the determiner of its authority.
Please take note: Nowhere have I mentioned that the Bible is not authoritative. Nowhere have I mentioned that it is.
I am open to hearing any specific objections to the arguments I have produced.
**What I believe matters for my exploration insofar as I believe that, as human beings, we have the ability to understand the world and understand each other. We have the ability to dialogue rationally. Without this ability, there is no guarantee that what we say to each other makes any sense. What that means is that there are certain logical rules to our thinking that are part of the fabric of existence and inherent in our nature.
I believe that we have the duty to seek truth wherever we find it. This requires us to be open, honest, and humble and above all charitable to our dialogue companions. As Socrates states, “The lover of inquiry must follow his beloved wherever it may lead him.”
David wrote: "Again, what I believe** is not at issue. The following questions I have posed are at issue..."My response: It is at issue according to God.
1 Cor. 2:14
If you are not a Christian, I might as well be speaking to someone who only speaks Polish. I speak English... they speak Polish... they CANNOT understand me.
Alas, I no longer have the time to give to this particular exchange. I have enjoyed it and have learned much. I thank you for your time and contributions. (Also, thank you for the book recommendations.)Robert, I shall give you the last word (or anyone else that would like to contribute).
May the peace of Christ be with you all.
1 Corinthians 2:14 - "But the natural [unbelieving] man does not accept the things [the teachings and revelations] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness [absurd and illogical] to him; and
he is incapable of understanding them
, because they are spiritually discerned and appreciated, [and he is unqualified to judge spiritual matters]."
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
I am interested in learning more about the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. What might anyone recommend in the form of books and/or websites which lay out its teaching and justification?
Thank you!
Peace,
David