First, it does not mean that the only truth is Scripture. What do I mean by this? There are plenty of truths found outside of Scripture. The Bible is concerned about revealing God (Jesus) and who he is. Scripture’s primary concern is not science, math, psychology or any other field though it touches on every subject one could imagine.
Second, Sola Scriptura does not mean that the Bible is our only authority. This is probably the biggest opposition to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that hinders Catholics from agreeing with Protestants on biblical issues. There are other authorities outside of Scripture and the Bible is clear to this fact. For example Paul, in 1 and 2 Timothy, indicates that there are to be elders, deacons, and overseers. He outlines the requirements for these “offices” or “titles.”
Thus, Protestants do not believe the Bible is the only source of truth or authority. So what does Sola Scriptura mean then? Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the ultimate source of truth and the ultimate authority.
There is no source of truth that can trump Scripture. Therefore, when Scripture gives precedence for the way to carry out certain rites or rituals (baptism, communion, and so on), then we should take it very seriously to carry out those actions accordingly. This means there is no source of truth that is equal with Scripture. However, at the same time, all truth is God’s truth.
Secondly, there is no authority that is equal with Scripture. It is the theologian and pastorate’s role to interpret Scripture for their church in order to make it applicable for today, but it is not their role to come up with new doctrines or a set of dogmatics that cannot be proven by Scripture.
The Catholic would object this view by asking, “where does the Bible defend Scripture alone?” 2 Timothy 3 states that Scripture is God-breathed meaning the Bible is God’s Word revealed to us. Thus, all Christians (Protestant or Catholic) must take Scripture very serious, understanding it as infallible. If Scripture is not the ultimate source of truth, then by what standard can we judge one’s truth claims? Going back to 2 Timothy, Scripture equips Christians to be competent and able for good works.
All the apostles and Christ himself refer to Scripture as their ultimate source of truth and authority. When Christ faced persecution in the wilderness and by the Pharisees and Sadducees, he would always defend himself by beginning his statements, “It is written...” If Scripture was the ultimate authority for Christ, then it is also our ultimate authority. Jesus also rebuked the Sadduccees and Pharisees for not accepting Sola Scriptura in Matthew 15:3, 6 where he states, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” Further. Paul even warns his audience in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.”
My point is not to say that we cannot come up with new methods of thinking or applying Scripture to our lives. On the contrary, we must. If Scripture is to be timeless, we will always have to reevaluate Scripture to determine how we are to apply it to our lives today. For example, Paul did not warn his audience against the evils of Internet pornography because they did not have that kind of technology. But if we reevaluate how to apply the Scriptures to our lives, then we realize he did confront the issue of sexual purity. By simple logic we can connect the dots from sexual purity to avoiding Internet pornography. Beyond that, pornography is dehumanizing to women, it defiles the body, it ruins marriages, and it is ultimately adultery for all parties involved. Thus we can conclude “new truths” though in reality they are just eternal ones applied to our lives today.
Further verses to defend Sola Scriptura are below:
Deuteronomy 4:2 (NKJV)
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30:5–6 (NKJV)
Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18–19 (NKJV)
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Just because a source is divinely inspired does not make it sufficient on it's own. If all that a Christian had back in the day was Mark's Gospel, they could not validly conclude "Sola Mark".
ReplyDeleteThis is the problem with making 2 Timothy 3:16f a prooftext, for it says Scripture is "an" authority; that does not mean it is the "only" authority. The Oral Teaching of the Apostles was the "Word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13) as much as the written was, and both were from the same source and thus equal authority (2 Thess 2:15).
Most people don't know this, but in 2 Timothy 3:16 where it says "All Scripture," in Greek the terms are 'pasa graphe' which more literally is "every individual writing" (since graphe is singular). Given that, it would be impossible for Paul to be telling Timothy that every individual book or individual passage is "sufficient".
This investigation naturally leads to the final insight: If we are to have Sola Scriptura in the first place, then the "Scriptura" here must be defined. Since there are different sets of books out there, you must actually be arguing for the more specific thesis: Sola These 66 Books. But proving that from Scripture isn't something that can't be done.
Nick, can you clarify your last sentence? I am not sure if you made a typo or not when you said, "But proving that from Scripture isn't something that can't be done." If you mean that it is possible to prove the 66 books recognized by Protestants as inspired, then I agree. If you meant that I cannot prove those 66 books from their own writings, then I disagree.
ReplyDeleteHello Stuart,
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant was that there is no "Inspired Table of Contents" to the Bible, nor is there a way to derive such a table from the 66 books. We can get an idea of inspiration for some books, but by no means a formal and exhaustive list. This is precisely why Luther and many German Lutheran editions of the Bible put books like Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2nd Peter in the 'appendix' section of the Bible. Their only guide was a subjective criteria of "Does this book speak clearly of Christ and his work?," to which those NT Epistles failed Luther's test. And if someone as important as Luther couldn't tell what the correct canon was, I don't think most others could based on 'internal evidence' alone.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteTo be fair to both of us, I would like to tackle this issue, but I want to make sure I present the case thoroughly. Let me do my research because I completely disagree with your statement.
I appreciate your comments and want to thank you for being civil unlike some of the Catholics I have had this same conversation with. I have some free time this week and will cite my sources for you in case you are particularly interested in reading them.
Stuart
Before I get started in my writing, I would like to leave you with a thought though. To argue against Sola Scriptura is to diminish God's ability to preserve his Word and make his Word sufficient. I don't think your initial argument regarding the "sola Gospel of Mark" comment really holds any weight so I will not be taking it on for the sake of time.
ReplyDeleteNick, I have posted my response. May come out with a part two if it is necessary...
ReplyDelete