Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[zippy2006]

You seem to be making a category mistake, because sola scriptura is not an authoritative dogma. It's simply the recognition of the supremacy of the written tradition and its function in determining the authenticity of purported holy tradition. So it's not something that needs to derive authority from anywhere.

Just because something is not an authoritative dogma does not mean that it does not "need to derive authority from anywhere." Obviously Sola Scriptura is a propositional claim, and obviously it has some level of authority or non-authority. In fact it is a doctrine enjoined by Protestants on others. It makes no sense to say that it doesn't have to answer the question of authority. All propositions have to answer that question. (link)

The protestant claim isn't that the authority vanished...

I spoke about the Apostolic authority as interpretive, and that surely vanished on the Protestant thesis. I am talking about a living interpretive authority, such as was exercised at the Council of Jerusalem.

but we have a record of the earliest tradition in the Scriptures that plays a normative role over the innovations of a magesterium that has asserted its own authority in an illegitimate fashion

The Bible itself attests to the fact that there was a non-Scriptural, divine authority, which was living and interpretive (e.g. Acts 15:28...). Believe it or not, the Bible didn't sprout arms and legs and anathematize Arius. The Church did that, and it did so authoritatively.

 

[zippy2006]

That Bible text is not that confusing if you are willing to quote it and note the details.

That's true. The Jews searched Jewish scriptures to verify a Jewish claim. "...Therefore, Sola Scriptura."

 

[Fervent]

Just because something is not an authoritative dogma does not mean that it does not "need to derive authority from anywhere." Obviously Sola Scriptura is a propositional claim, and obviously it has some level of authority or non-authority. In fact it is a doctrine enjoined by Protestants on others. It makes no sense to say that it doesn't have to answer the question of authority. All propositions have to answer that question. (link)

sola scriptura is nothing more than a statement of the authority of Scripture. It doesn't need a locus of authority from which to generate, because its force is the acceptance of Scripture as authoritative.

I spoke about the Apostolic authority as interpretive, and that surely vanished on the Protestant thesis. I am talking about a living interpretive authority, such as was exercised at the Council of Jerusalem.

The central issue with sola scriptura is one of hermeneutics, with the central dispute being whether or not there is some magic in the magisterium to interpret what's written in Scripture or if any educated person can reasonably interpret it for themselves. The coucil of Jerusalem didn't interpret the tradition, but were a part of forming its foundation. To speak of these foundational movements of the Holy Spirit as extending beyond the apostles themselves is dubious, at best.

The Bible itself attests to the fact that there was a non-Scriptural, divine authority, which was living and interpretive (e.g. Acts 15:28...). Believe it or not, the Bible didn't sprout arms and legs and anathematize Arius. The Church did that, and it did so authoritatively.

An authority given to the apostle's, yes. The question is whether or not the bishopric, which engaged in such crimes as simony and blatant politicking, is the legitimate heir of such authority or if that the written documents are the most secure basis for normative tradition.

 

[zippy2006]

sola scriptura is nothing more than a statement of the authority of Scripture. It doesn't need a locus of authority from which to generate, because its force is the acceptance of Scripture as authoritative.

That doesn't answer the question or the problem whatsoever. You don't get to simply declare propositions immune from questions of authority.

The central issue with sola scriptura is one of hermeneutics, with the central dispute being whether or not there is some magic in the magisterium to interpret what's written in Scripture or if any educated person can reasonably interpret it for themselves.

This is a separate question (the perspicacity of Scripture).

The coucil of Jerusalem didn't interpret the tradition...

Of course it did!

An authority given to the apostle's, yes.

The Council of Nicea occurred long after the Apostles.

 

[Fervent]

That doesn't answer the question or the problem whatsoever. You don't get to simply declare propositions immune from questions of authority.

I'm not, I'm saying the authority question is a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura amounts to.

This is a separate question (the perspicacity of Scripture).

Nope, perspicuity is about a common sense meaning. What I am talking about is prior to questions of perspicuity and sufficiency, and comes down to an ecclesial question.

Of course it did!

No, the council of Jerusalem gave an authoritative innovation. It wasn't interpreting what had come before, but making a pronouncement about the new work of the Holy Spirit.

The Council of Nicea occurred long after the Apostles.

Sure, but what that was and why it was authoritative is a different question than what is written in Scripture. Ultimately the question of sola scriptura isn't truly about Scripture at all, but ecclesiology. Because what is actually objected to is the priesthood of all believers and the ability for "laity" to interpret what is written in Scripture and the church's history for themselves. It is about the legitimacy-or illegitimacy-of a tiered ecclesiology setting clergy above the congregation.

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks

so then ... obvious for all to see that these were NOT Christians testing out their OWN Christian leadership - rather they were NON-Christians choosing to TEST the doctrine they had just heard in their Synagogue - against the Bible "alone" -- to "SEE IF" those things were so.


Which is what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 to the point of flat out rejecting the teaching/tradition of their magisterium on that very same topic of whether to accept or reject Paul's doctrine

That Bible text is not that confusing if you are willing to quote it and note the details.

That's true.

Now see? We do agree on at least something -- even when you choose not to quote the text or reference the details in it.

The Jews searched Jewish scriptures

1. Both Jews and gentiles according to the text you are not quoting.

to verify a Jewish claim.

2. To discredit a Jewish magesterium tradition/teaching/doctrine that condemned the teaching of Paul. As we see in the text you are not quoting.
3. They had to do that test with complete disregard for what their own magisterium had already ruled on that particular teaching , according to the details in the text you are not quoting.

BobRyan said:

I think the actual text says that when they heard someone of a different denomination preaching a Christian doctrine -- they were able to read their Bible for themselves to "SEE IF" those things were SO - rather than blindly listening to their own magisterium's traditions and teachings and condemning Paul's teaching just as the magisterium for their Synagogue had dictated.

 

[fhansen]

It's interesting that many here, regardless of the side they take on Sola Scriptura, acknowledge that the reading of Scripture alone isn't necessarily sufficient to ensure proper or full understanding of the faith.

Consequently, they also rely on some outside authority or tradition or interpretation that influences their understanding of the faith while nonetheless rihhtfully demanding that this understanding is consistent with scripture, using scripture as the norm or rule of faith in that way without using it as the sole original authority for knowing the truths of the faith.

Others, OTOH, apparently believe that picking up the Bible and reading it on their own will guarantee a full, objective, and proper understanding of the faith.

The Bereans were noble as they conscientiously sought to know the truth and confirm it with scripture. That doesn't mean, however, that they could come to know the truth via scripture alone, without this outside source of knowledge or revelation. And it also doesn't necessarily guarantee that any or all of them would necessarily agree with that outside source, Paul in this case. We really just know that they made the effort.

I tend to feel the same way today about studying scripture but also about studying the historic teachings of the church and the patristics and the early councils since they all add information about what the church originally believed and practiced that is valuable from our perspective now, centuries removed from the original fact. Just some comments.

 

[BobRyan]

It's interesting that many here, regardless of the side they take on Sola Scriptura, acknowledge that the reading of Scripture alone isn't necessarily sufficient to ensure proper or full understanding of the faith.

The argument is that "testing doctrine" is done by reading scripture "alone" as we see in Acts 17:11

It does not say "they could not read scripture so they asked their Jewish magesterium if the magisterium's condemnation of Paul's doctrine, was what the Bible was really saying or not".

I don't think this part is the least bit confusing to readers on either side of this topic.

Others, OTOH, apparently believe that picking up the Bible and reading it on their own will guarantee a full, objective, and proper understanding of the faith.

just as we see in the case of the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11 -- (a verse some are very reluctant to quote)

The Bereans were noble as they conscientiously sought to know the truth

And they sought scripture to "SEE IF" those things spoken to them by the Apostles Paul "were so" -- EVEN though their own magisterium in both tradition and teaching had already condemned that teaching.

Details so often skimmed past

That doesn't mean, however, that they could come to know the truth via scripture alone

These are non-Christian students of the Bible in Acts 17:11. They had NO Christian magisterium to tell them what to say or think.

They had to test against scripture (as the text actually says) and could not rely on the guidance of the very magisterium that was on record as condemning Paul's teaching -- to get to the right answer.

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing to unbiased objective readers.

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks

so then ... obvious for all to see that these were NOT Christians testing out their OWN Christian leadership - rather they were NON-Christians choosing to TEST the doctrine they had just heard in their Synagogue - against the Bible "alone" -- to "SEE IF" those things were so.


Which is what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 to the point of flat out rejecting the teaching/tradition of their magisterium on that very same topic of whether to accept or reject Paul's doctrine

what part of that text -- the details in it -- tell you that the non-Christian Bereans were relying on the guidance of their non-Christian magisterium to judge the teaching of Paul ?? Especially since their magisterium had already condemned Paul's teaching?

This is a straightforward question. I look forward to how it is addressed here on this thread.

 

[fhansen]

what part of that text -- the details in it -- tell you that the non-Christian Bereans were relying on the guidance of their non-Christian magisterium to judge the teaching of Paul ?? Especially since their magisterium had already condemned Paul's teaching?

Somehow I'm not sure if you even read my post. It was just assessing the different viewpoints. As far as any authority or magisterium goes, they're not acting any differently than Paul; they're presenting the truth as they believe they've received it somewhere or somehow along the line. We, then, must assess those claims as best we can with whatever resources and guidance of the Holy Spirit we have.

 

[linux.poet]

The confusing part of this argument is that, while Scripture was being written, there were other sources of divine revelation. I mean, the Scripture was derived from God's revelation, and Scripture writers didn't know that this revelation would cease and their writings would be the only canon. How could they tell?

Thus, the proof of Sola Scriptura is here:

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.

The interpretation would be to apply this set of verses not only to Revelation, but to the entire Bible, thus refuting P3 of the original argument.

 

[Fervent]

It's interesting that many here, regardless of the side they take on Sola Scriptura, acknowledge that the reading of Scripture alone isn't necessarily sufficient to ensure proper or full understanding of the faith.

Yes, complete sufficiency of Scripture is a separate issue from sola scriptura.

Consequently, they also rely on some outside authority or tradition or interpretation that influences their understanding of the faith while nonetheless rihhtfully demanding that this understanding is consistent with scripture, using scripture as the norm or rule of faith in that way without using it as the sole original authority for knowing the truths of the faith.

Even those who deny having a tradition have a tradition

Others, OTOH, apparently believe that picking up the Bible and reading it on their own will guarantee a full, objective, and proper understanding of the faith.

I've seen this accusation, but not sure I've seen anyone actually make that claim.

The Bereans were noble as they conscientiously sought to know the truth and confirm it with scripture. That doesn't mean, however, that they could come to know the truth via scripture alone, without this outside source of knowledge or revelation. And it also doesn't necessarily guarantee that any or all of them would necessarily agree with that outside source, Paul in this case. We really just know that they made the effort.

I think it's implied that they found agreement between what was in Scripture and what Paul was saying. Though from my reading it's more that they checked to see if what Paul claimed was in Scripture was really present, so interpretation would be secondary.

I tend to feel the same way today about studying scripture but also about studying the historic teachings of the church and the patristics and the early councils since they all add information about what the church originally believed and practiced that is valuable from our perspective now, centuries removed from the original fact. Just some comments.

With all the information we have at our fingertips, I don't understand why more don't access it themselves. Too often people's knowledge of the patristics comes from embedded quotes that often are more of a ventriloquist act than what the texts themselves are speaking about. Same with the Bible itself, especially when certain Biblical authors are taken as the standard line and then the rest of Scripture is interpreted with that author's voice.

 

[concretecamper]

Yes, complete sufficiency of Scripture is a separate issue from sola scriptura.

Convince your protestant brothers and sisters of this before you attempt to convince Catholics.

 

[Fervent]

Convince your protestant brothers and sisters of this before you attempt to convince Catholics.

How much actual protestant theology have you read? Sola scriptura, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the perspicuity of Scripture are not treated identically(though they certainly do intertwine). Outside of traditions that follow an anabaptist bent there are typically at least 3(but more often 4 as in Wesleyan theology) sources of authoritative doctrine.

 

[concretecamper]

How much actual protestant theology have you read? Sola scriptura, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the perspicuity of Scripture are not treated identically(though they certainly do intertwine). Outside of traditions that follow an anabaptist bent there are typically at least 3(but more often 4 as in Wesleyan theology) sources of authoritative doctrine.

Agreed, nothing is treated identically or constant in protestant theology. Shifting sand comes to mind.

 

[BobRyan]

The confusing part of this argument is that, while Scripture was being written, there were other sources of divine revelation. I mean, the Scripture was derived from God's revelation, and Scripture writers didn't know that this revelation would cease and their writings would be the only canon. How could they tell?

There has never been a statement in the Bible of the form "if you get a message from God - you can go ahead and ignore it - if you guess that 500 years from now - no one else will be able to read that message because they will have lost access to it".

So there was never a point of confusion of that sort in any age.

 

[BobRyan]

It's interesting that many here, regardless of the side they take on Sola Scriptura, acknowledge that the reading of Scripture alone isn't necessarily sufficient to ensure proper or full understanding of the faith.

The argument is that "testing doctrine" is done by reading scripture "alone" as we see in Acts 17:11

It does not say "they could not read scripture so they asked their Jewish magesterium if the magisterium's condemnation of Paul's doctrine, was what the Bible was really saying or not".

I don't think this part is the least bit confusing to readers on either side of this topic.

Others, OTOH, apparently believe that picking up the Bible and reading it on their own will guarantee a full, objective, and proper understanding of the faith.

just as we see in the case of the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11 -- (a verse some are very reluctant to quote)

The Bereans were noble as they conscientiously sought to know the truth

And they sought scripture to "SEE IF" those things spoken to them by the Apostles Paul "were so" -- EVEN though their own magisterium in both tradition and teaching had already condemned that teaching.

Details so often skimmed past

That doesn't mean, however, that they could come to know the truth via scripture alone

These are non-Christian students of the Bible in Acts 17:11. They had NO Christian magisterium to tell them what to say or think.

They had to test against scripture (as the text actually says) and could not rely on the guidance of the very magisterium that was on record as condemning Paul's teaching -- to get to the right answer.

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing to unbiased objective readers.

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks

so then ... obvious for all to see that these were NOT Christians testing out their OWN Christian leadership - rather they were NON-Christians choosing to TEST the doctrine they had just heard in their Synagogue - against the Bible "alone" -- to "SEE IF" those things were so.


Which is what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 to the point of flat out rejecting the teaching/tradition of their magisterium on that very same topic of whether to accept or reject Paul's doctrine

what part of that text -- the details in it -- tell you that the non-Christian Bereans were relying on the guidance of their non-Christian magisterium to judge the teaching of Paul ?? Especially since their magisterium had already condemned Paul's teaching?

This is a straightforward question. I look forward to how it is addressed here on this thread.

=======================================================================
Did not have long to wait...

Somehow I'm not sure if you even read my post. It was just assessing the different viewpoints.

Ok - well as you see from my post above - I did respond to several segments of it.

Is this where you consider answering the one Question above??

As far as any authority or magisterium goes, they're not acting any differently than Paul;

Paul is speaking the doctrine of the Christian church in that Acts 17:11 Jewish Synagogue.

The text you are still not quoting is stating that they consult scriptures to "see IF those things spoken by Paul - WERE SO" even though they were not Christians at all. And the writer of Acts 17 -- says they are approved for doing it. sola scriptura.

they're presenting the truth as they believe they've received it somewhere or somehow

The text does not say "somewhere somehow" ... the text you are not quoting says 'they searched the scriptures daily to SEE IF" those things were so.

Are you trying to argue they ran straight to their magisterium to see IF their traditions were affirming Paul -- and if SO then Paul is approved?? Is that how you would change the text.

We, then, must assess those claims as best we can with whatever resources and guidance of the Holy Spirit we have.

Ok so what does the text say that they did that does NOT look like "sola scriptura testing" of Paul's doctrine in your POV?
(speaking of the text you are not quoting)

 

[fhansen]

I've seen this accusation, but not sure I've seen anyone actually make that claim.

Well, whether they make it or not, many certainly seem to do it. On these forums people are continuously quoting scripture to support their positions while denying the role of tradition.

With all the information we have at our fingertips, I don't understand why more don't access it themselves. Too often people's knowledge of the patristics comes from embedded quotes that often are more of a ventriloquist act than what the texts themselves are speaking about. Same with the Bible itself, especially when certain Biblical authors are taken as the standard line and then the rest of Scripture is interpreted with that author's voice.

I agree.

 

[Fervent]

Well, whether they make it or not, many certainly seem to do it. On these forums people are continuously quoting scripture to support their positions while denying the role of tradition.

I'm not sure one amounts to the other, though there are a lot who have a strong belief in the perspicuity of Scripture. Though that is not something that the magisterial reformers believed.

Agreed, nothing is treated identically or constant in protestant theology. Shifting sand comes to mind.

It would be rather strange to treat different doctrine as if they were identical. There's plenty of constants in protestant theology, though there are always fringe groups that happen to make a lot more noise than the conservative elements. But I noticed you didn't answer the question about how much protestant theology[that is, the writings of protestants themselves not summaries or Catholic polemic literature] you've actually read.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not sure one amounts to the other, though there are a lot who have a strong belief in the perspicuity of Scripture. Though that is not something that the magisterial reformers believed.

I'm really not sure how much difference there is at the end of the day. If one is going to utilize scripture as the rule of faith, then one must assume it's fairly perspicuous. Personal opinion and interpretation are pretty hard to avoid in the process as I see it, making the interpreter the authority rather than scripture itself.

 

[Fervent]

I'm really not sure how much difference there is at the end of the day. If one is going to utilize scripture as the rule of faith, then one must assume it's fairly perspicuous. Personal opinion and interpretation is pretty hard to avoid in the process.

Depends on if it's the sole rule of faith, or the final. Certainly there must be some trust in a literal reading of the text but it need not be free from thorny issues that require appeals to a historic faith. Which is really the issue, sola scriptura was a rejection of an ecclesial authority over Scripture not of the existence of an authoritative and normative tradition.