Help me out with Sola Scriptura

[ClementofRome]

Wesleyan Epistemology finds its foundation in what is called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. That is, knowledge gained through scripture, tradition, experience and reason. Wesley always placed scripture in a place of primacy, but would never deny the other three as sources of knowledge.

I have been a firm believer in sola scriptura as a reformational doctrine for many years and understand the important role that it played in the Reformation itself over and against an over abundance of emphasis on tradition from Roman Catholicism. However, I cannot help but think that even those of us in the reformed camp also utilize tradition, experience and reason as sources of knowledge with an understanding that scripture takes primacy over these other three.

So, if we also utilize other sources for knowledge...then, it ceases to be sola scruptura, no? Help me understand how we can possibly be honest and reject any other sourse of knowledge besides Scripture, so that the reformation call of sola scriptura be grounded in reality.

Blessings,
Clem

 

[BBAS 64]

Wesleyan Epistemology finds its foundation in what is called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. That is, knowledge gained through scripture, tradition, experience and reason. Wesley always placed scripture in a place of primacy, but would never deny the other three as sources of knowledge.

I have been a firm believer in sola scriptura as a reformational doctrine for many years and understand the important role that it played in the Reformation itself over and against an over abundance of emphasis on tradition from Roman Catholicism. However, I cannot help but think that even those of us in the reformed camp also utilize tradition, experience and reason as sources of knowledge with an understanding that scripture takes primacy over these other three.

So, if we also utilize other sources for knowledge...then, it ceases to be sola scruptura, no? Help me understand how we can possibly be honest and reject any other sourse of knowledge besides Scripture, so that the reformation call of sola scriptura be grounded in reality.

Blessings,
Clem

Good Day, Clem

I do not understand how the other sources of Knowledge stands in contidiction to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I would not go to Scripture to learn the meta -phyiscal nautre of the "atom". The doctrine does not state that it is the only source of knowledge for all things. THe Scripture does not help me to teach the OSI model in my networking class. The call of the reformation is gounded in the reality of what had been lost in the christian "rule of Faith."



What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Augustine states it as such...

"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,--to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

The church had strayed away from the princible teaching and clearity in which Scripture addresses all things that corcern the "faith".

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[lmnop9876]

i like the anglican position best:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation....[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
[/FONT]

 

[heymikey80]

Wesleyan Epistemology finds its foundation in what is called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. That is, knowledge gained through scripture, tradition, experience and reason. Wesley always placed scripture in a place of primacy, but would never deny the other three as sources of knowledge.

I have been a firm believer in sola scriptura as a reformational doctrine for many years and understand the important role that it played in the Reformation itself over and against an over abundance of emphasis on tradition from Roman Catholicism. However, I cannot help but think that even those of us in the reformed camp also utilize tradition, experience and reason as sources of knowledge with an understanding that scripture takes primacy over these other three.

So, if we also utilize other sources for knowledge...then, it ceases to be sola scruptura, no? Help me understand how we can possibly be honest and reject any other sourse of knowledge besides Scripture, so that the reformation call of sola scriptura be grounded in reality.

Blessings,
Clem

Yeah, we do use other sources of knowledge and no it doesn't cease to be sola scriptura. The "sola"s are each meant in specific senses. Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone. Similarly Scripture alone is the authoritative rule of faith, worship, and the Church of Christ; yet it is not alone in comprehending itself (though clearer Scripture comprehends less clear), but is accompanied with reason, other historical information, tradition, critical exegesis of its meaning, and even practical argumentation what it means. These are tools to mine the meaning of Scripture. Scripture remains the sole supreme rule: there is no co-ordinate rule of God's words with some authority conferred on His instituted churches. The churches don't renegotiate back with God. His words stand.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I like the responses above, but I can recommend a great book on the subject of Sola Scriptura. Keith Mathison's The Shape of Sola Scriptura is a book that modern Evangelicals (Reformed or otherwise) need to read.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[ClementofRome]

Thanks folks....I suppose that I am stuck on the "sola" with respect to epistemology and in relation to the other "solas."

I totally understand all of the above, yet believe that clarification needs to be in place before one assumes "sola scriptura" and I believe that we leave ourselves open to misunderstanding without the clarification. Am I wrong here?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I totally understand all of the above, yet believe that clarification needs to be in place before one assumes "sola scriptura" and I believe that we leave ourselves open to misunderstanding without the clarification. Am I wrong here?

The Solas are important, but what they mean are perverted by many today. Some folks, among proponents and opponents alike, have distorted Sola Scriptura and claim that it means we
are to read the scriptures from the vantage point of an individualistic vacuum (just me, my bible and the Holy Ghost with not other knowledge of history, culture, tradition, language, etc...). That is false. It is not what the Reformers taught, though many people today seem to think that is what they meant.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[ClementofRome]

Thanks Cajun. I am in discussion with someone who insists that if we use "sola" then we mean "sola." If we mean something else, we need to say so. He forces me into the mold of which you have outlined above in insisting that when I say "sola" I mean that the Bible alone is the means of ALL knowledge.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Jon_]

Wesleyan Epistemology finds its foundation in what is called the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. That is, knowledge gained through scripture, tradition, experience and reason. Wesley always placed scripture in a place of primacy, but would never deny the other three as sources of knowledge.

I have been a firm believer in sola scriptura as a reformational doctrine for many years and understand the important role that it played in the Reformation itself over and against an over abundance of emphasis on tradition from Roman Catholicism. However, I cannot help but think that even those of us in the reformed camp also utilize tradition, experience and reason as sources of knowledge with an understanding that scripture takes primacy over these other three.

So, if we also utilize other sources for knowledge...then, it ceases to be sola scruptura, no? Help me understand how we can possibly be honest and reject any other sourse of knowledge besides Scripture, so that the reformation call of sola scriptura be grounded in reality.

Blessings,
Clem

I would not say that "reason"—if by reason you mean "rationality"—is a separate source of knowledge. God made us rational so that we could understand Scripture. We learn absolutely nothing solely through reason. Reason, rationality, logic, simply provides us with the correct forms of thought we use to draw inferences.

I must definitely agree that Reformed churches probably go too far with tradition these days. In fact, one of the primary and first place arguments that many Reformed clergy use against interpretations they don't agree with is to say, "The Reformers never said that" (this one drives me nuts too). Well, maybe not, but the Reformers were not infallible and they are not here now to address today's issues. This is not to deny the heritage of the Reformation and Reformed Theology, both of which we all value and treasure very highly. But some people today use it as a veritable argumentum ad populum to avoid dealing with the argument. Such unsubstantiated appeal to tradition is Pharisaical. The Westerminster Confession (written by Reformers, no less) says that all tradition is to be subordinated to Scripture, even the Confession itself, which is why it is littered with scriptural citations. See 1:10 and 31:3.

This brings us to the last extra-biblical source of knowledge espoused by Wesley. I think the previous two have been appropriately addressed. Whether or not experience is a source of knowledge has been an ongoing debate in philosophy since Parmenides, Zeno, and the rest of the Eleatics attacked the Milesians on their doctrine of motion (ca. 500 B.C.). The debate is almost as old as philosophy itself, which, according to "tradition" began with Thales in 585 B.C.

I simply must stand with Clark in his assertion that experience cannot be a source of knowledge, and by knowledge we (Clark and I) mean the Platonic formulation of justified true belief. In fact, this position best represents the doctrine of sola Scriptura by drawing out its logical implications. Many Reformed persons have repudiated this assertion, saying, "That's not what the Reformers meant or understood by sola Scriptura!" I rather disagree on some counts (Calvin, in particular), but that's another topic. The point is that the denial of experiential knowledge is a necessary inference from sola Scriptura and I will demonstrate one particularly good example.

If experience yields knowledge, then it follows that science is the fount of most of human knowledge. Now, if we say that experience and Scripture are both sources of knowledge, what do we do when the two contradict? Genesis 1 teaches that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. Science teaches us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. If experience is justificatory to knowledge, then how do we reconcile this contradiction? Rome has already answered this question for us. They yield on their interpretation of the Bible and embrace science. The official doctrine of Rome is that science is correct in its conclusions, but that God implanted a human soul into Adam at which time he became a "living soul."

As John Locke put it, "We have not yet in the course of history seen nature go out of her course, but we have reason to believe that in the same time span millions of men have lied. Now, what is more plausible? That nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie?" Experience tells us that the Bible was written (in part, at least) by liars. Experience tells us that Paul had some kind of psychological episode on the road to Damascus, not a life-changing encounter with the Lord of glory. Experience teaches us that Ai was uninhabited at the time Joshua and the Israelites were supposed to have destroyed it; and experience teaches us that it is impossible for a single man and woman to birth the entire human race because the gene pool of the following necessarily incestuous relations could not have caused the genetic diversity of the human race today.

Now, a good Christian would answer, "Well, where science and the Bible disagree, the Bible is right." But how do you know which one is right? You have already asserted that both are sources of knowledge. If geology knows that the Flood never took place, how can you know from the Bible it did? You say science is wrong because it contradicts the Bible, but why is this anymore true than the proposition that the Bible is wrong because it contradicts science? Clearly then, it becomes an issue of presuppositions. In this, some Reformed do better than other Christians when they say that experience is based upon scriptural presuppositions. For instance, one should not play in the street during rush hour because this would be putting one's self into harm's way, thus putting the Lord to the test. This is a good answer, but consider what happens when the topic moves from morality to medicine.

Clearly, one who is dead is dead. One who is dead three days is most definitely dead. Yet, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, as prophesied. Experience teaches this is preposterous, the Bible teaches it is the power of God. Experience teaches there is no God, the Bible teaches that God has implanted a priori knowledge of himself in the minds of men. We rightly say experience is mistaken and the Bible is correct, but why? Do we say that experience is wrong only when it contradicts the Bible? If so, then how can experience truly yield knowledge? If every proposition that experience produces that contradicts the Bible is ruled out as wrong because it contradicts the Bible, does it not become apparent that experience cannot possibly be a source of knowledge? We say that whatever experience produces that does not contradict the Bible can be known, but this cannot possibly follow from the presupposition that the Bible is always correct. The Bible never asserts that one can find the truth through experience. The Bible clearly says that God alone is truth and that God alone reveals his truth to those he will. For this reason, experience can never yield truth. Nevermind the many complicated arguments of the Eleatics, the sophists, the rationalists, and Gordon Clark against empiricism. These are unnecessary. The Bible very clearly lays out the source of truth: God. And in what has God revealed himself but Scripture? General revelation is not a source of truth. In this the Reformers did agree. General revelation does not testify to a true understanding of God in any sense whatsoever. The teleological implications thereof do so greatly influence men to consider their Designer that they are without excuse, but they gain positively zero true propositions concerning God from nature. Natural theology can never infer to the God of the Bible because it presupposes an extra-biblical foundation.

For these reasons and many others that I have not had a chance to address, we must conclude that tradition and experience cannot possibly be sources of knowledge, for the former relies upon Scripture for any validity whatsoever, and the latter can never reach any true conclusions—not to mention it frequently contradicts the Bible. Thus, the Bible alone is the source of all knowledge.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

There is a very clear inference that can be drawn from this description (it is not really a definition). If one is obligated to believe the truth (see my blog entry on this topic: http://nicholsonjon.wordpress.com/2005/11/19/the-ethics-of-truth/) and if only the Scriptures are obligatory to belief then it follows that only the Scriptures are true. This is why I contend the doctrine of sola Scriptura implies that Scripture is the lone source of knowledge even if the Reformers did not explicitly teach this. The implication is inescapable.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[heymikey80]

Thanks Cajun. I am in discussion with someone who insists that if we use "sola" then we mean "sola." If we mean something else, we need to say so. He forces me into the mold of which you have outlined above in insisting that when I say "sola" I mean that the Bible alone is the means of ALL knowledge.

Thanks for your input.

I would gently point out to him that epistemologically meaning doesn't exist for us out of context. Never has, and likely never will. So it is with Scripture; so it is with a pithy slogan like "Sola Scriptura".

So to answer such an assertion simply say it's simply not what he says it is. To pull a phrase out of context is to deprive it of meaning. "Jesus Saves" means something in a context; "... at First National Bank" points to a radically different context which is not meant, no one ever meant it, and to demand the words only mean that one context is ludicrous, an unrealistic flight of fancy to burn a strawman.