Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[BillMcEnaney]

Some Protestants seem to think ancient Jews believed in sola scriptura before Christ's birth. If they did, they would have thought the Old Testament was the only Scripture they needed and probably would have denied that the New Testament belonged in the Bible. Many Christians quote 2 Timothy 3:16 to argue for sola scriptura because that verse says, "All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [b]training in righteousness." But since there the Bible's canon got published in 397 A.D. at the Third Council of Carthage, St. Paul probably didn't know that God inspired him to write that epistle. If he didn't think he was writing a divinely inspired book, he probably meant the Old Testament when he wrote that verse.

 

[The Liturgist]

But since there the Bible's canon got published in 397 A.D. at the Third Council of Carthage,

Just a minor note, the New Testament canon originated in the Church of Alexandria when St. Athanasius the Great, who is a Doctor of the Church in Roman Catholicism, promulgated it via his 39th Paschal Encyclical, and in the absence of any contrary information, and given similarities to the history of the canonization process as recorded in Eusebius, we can reasonably conclude this canon was based on the discernment of St. Athanasius (and perhaps his brother bishops in the Church of Alexandria, although St. Athanasius is a powerful, virtuous force in the early Church).

However, the extremely conservative Roman church of the fourth century, which did not even have antiphonal music in the style of St. Ignatius of Antioch, until it was introduced by St. Ambrose in Milan, along with a number of hymns, caused the NT canon to be widely adopted, as opposed to Antioch likely embracing a more limited canon akin to the books translated in the initial version of the Peshitta (as opposed to those added later by Mor Philoxenus).

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Just a minor note, the New Testament canon originated in the Church of Alexandria when St. Athanasius the Great, who is a Doctor of the Church in Roman Catholicism, promulgated it via his 39th Paschal Encyclical, and in the absence of any contrary information, and given similarities to the history of the canonization process as recorded in Eusebius, we can reasonably conclude this canon was based on the discernment of St. Athanasius (and perhaps his brother bishops in the Church of Alexandria, although St. Athanasius is a powerful, virtuous force in the early Church).

However, the extremely conservative Roman church of the fourth century, which did not even have antiphonal music in the style of St. Ignatius of Antioch, until it was introduced by St. Ambrose in Milan, along with a number of hymns, caused the NT canon to be widely adopted, as opposed to Antioch likely embracing a more limited canon akin to the books translated in the initial version of the Peshitta (as opposed to those added later by Mor Philoxenus).

Thank you, Liturgist. It's always good to learn from people who know more history than I do since it's hard for me to memorize.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Sometimes my thoughts get hard to word when I feel exhausted. So let's see whether I can tell you something I meant to say when I answered Liturgist. In my reply, wanted to remind everyone that I contradict myself by saying that though the Bible consists of the Old Testament, it also consists of both Testaments. The Old Testament isn't the whole Bible if the New Testament is another part of the Bible.

Since I've heard various senses of "sola scriptrura," I wish people would define it before they use that Latin phrase. The Catholic Church doesn't believe in sola scriptura, and from what I can tell, neither did any orthodox member of the early Church. That's why I quoted The Commonitory by St. Vincent of Lerins.

See Chapters 2-3.

 

[zippy2006]

If one holds to a view of "Sola Scriptura" that "only what is expressly mentioned in the Bible can be believed", then yes, that would render "Sola Scriptura" self-refuting. But that isn't the historic way Sola Scriptura was understood, or more accurately, the way Sola Scriptura was done--as was said earlier, it is more historically a method rather than a "doctrine" per se.

I must say that I find your attempt to distinguish and salvage Lutheranism wholly unconvincing. I have recently been listening to Jordan Cooper and his view seems similarly incoherent, although he is generally a careful thinker. I don't deny that there are different interpretations of Sola Scriptura among Protestants, but none of the views that I have seen come anywhere near adequately addressing the argument of the OP. It seems to me that this is a symptom of the lack of philosophical training among contemporary Protestants, but this leaves me wondering if the early scholastic Protestants were making the same errors. The most honest rejoinders I have seen are nothing more than tu quoque, which I suppose is better than nothing.

Regarding your post:

Sola Scriptura, therefore, is not understood to mean, "only what the Bible says can be believed", but rather following the Normative Principle, that which affirms and is in agreement with Scripture is also to be believed. If Scripture does not command nor prohibit something, and if it does not disrupt the peace and health of the Church, then it is permissable.

But you clearly do not believe this, and the canon is the easiest way to see this. Someone who adds to the canon of Scripture can easily do so while remaining within the parameters you set out, and yet you would nevertheless reject their addition on the basis of "Sola Scriptura," which proves that your definition of Sola Scriptura is mistaken.

There may be some problems that Nuda Scriptura succumbs to which Sola Scriptura does not, but the OP is not one of those problems. When it comes to the OP that is a distinction without a difference.

In Lutheranism we speak of the Norma Normans (The Ruling Rule) and the Norma Normata (The Ruled Rule)...

The technical problem at hand is that that which defines the boundaries of an authoritative document must itself be as authoritative as the document, if it is to be 'dogmatic'. If the boundaries of Scripture, such as the canon, are only a norma normata, then they cannot be dogmatic. And since the boundaries are not included in Scripture itself, they must not be dogmatic (on Protestantism). So if the Protestant wishes to be consistent then he must affirm that Sola Scriptura is a fallible doctrine which is not on par with Scriptural doctrines. One reason Protestants won't do this, especially as a matter of praxis, is because it throws doubt on the boundaries of Scripture, and this undermines Scripture itself since a document without boundaries is not identifiable, and is therefore impotent.

I drives me a little bit bonkers to watch Lutherans--and other Protestants too, but Lutherans like Cooper should know better--attempting to continually evade the central problem here. Granted, this happens in all traditions, but it more often happens on the doctrinal peripheries.

 

[zippy2006]

If one holds to a view of "Sola Scriptura" that "only what is expressly mentioned in the Bible can be believed", then yes, that would render "Sola Scriptura" self-refuting. But that isn't the historic way Sola Scriptura was understood, or more accurately, the way Sola Scriptura was done--as was said earlier, it is more historically a method rather than a "doctrine" per se.

Allow me to speak informally. Forget all of the arguments you have rehearsed against Nuda Scriptura. Forget those ways that you regularly distinguish yourself from other Protestants. Forget the historical polemic against the Roman Church.

Suppose some dude comes up to you, inquiring about joining your faith. He knows next to nothing about Christianity, but he does know how to avoid contradictions. That is, he understands logic. You explain to him that Scripture and Scripture alone has super-duper authority. Other things also have some authority, but their authority is not super-duper. The dude is going to ask you straight away what grounds you have for this belief, and what level of authority such a belief rises to. If you say that the belief is a doctrine, then he will want to know the grounds and authority for the doctrine. If you say that the belief is a method, then he will want to know the grounds and authority for the method. These questions will become even more obvious once he understands that Scripture itself does not attest to this belief.

He will surely want to know whether this non-Scriptural belief/doctrine/method also has super-duper authority. Or maybe it only has super authority? Or maybe just authority? Or perhaps it is nothing but a stray opinion? These questions too will become even more obvious and intuitive once he understands that different Christian groups hold to different canons of Scripture, and that Scripture itself does not attest to the canon.

At the end of the day the dude will reject your claims as unprincipled and ad hoc even without knowing anything about Nuda Scriptura or Roman Catholicism. If you try to say that your belief/doctrine/method has super-duper authority then he will point out that your beliefs are formally self-refuting.


(And it seems to me that the crux is something like infallibility, irreformability, unquestionability, etc. If Sola Scriptura doesn't have this level of authority then it is incoherent, and we have no reason at all to believe that the belief/doctrine/method of Sola Scriptura has this level of authority.)

 

[FireDragon76]

Sola Scriptura isn't a dogma, but a proposed principle. That is my understanding as an ELCA Lutheran.

Really, the issues separating the Lutheran World Federation and Rome at this point are down to the nature of the Papacy, women priests, the divorced, and LGBT persons. Nothing else is really all that church dividing.

 

[FredVB]

To me, the Bible is with primacy over other things for what we should believe, though even as is said in the Bible we each have requirement to live without being contrary to our conscience. Even with that, believers generally grow, as they should, to trust more and more from the scriptures of the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Sola Scriptura isn't a dogma, but a proposed principle. That is my understanding as an ELCA Lutheran.

Really, the issues separating the Lutheran World Federation and Rome at this point are down to the nature of the Papacy, women priests, the divorced, and LGBT persons. Nothing else is really all that church dividing.

How does that compare to Luther's objections in your POV?
Do you think even one Lutheran was insisting that they would rather die than give up their views on those issues you just listed???

 

[BobRyan]

To me, the Bible is with primacy over other things for what we should believe, though even as is said in the Bible we each have requirement to live without being contrary to our conscience. Even with that, believers generally grow, as they should, to trust more and more from the scriptures of the Bible.

Amen! Sola Scriptura testing of all doctrine, tradition and practice is the only way to go.

 

[BobRyan]

Sola Scriptura, therefore, is not understood to mean, "only what the Bible says can be believed", but rather following the Normative Principle, that which affirms and is in agreement with Scripture is also to be believed. If Scripture does not command nor prohibit something, and if it does not disrupt the peace and health of the Church, then it is permissable. So, for example, Scripture does not command having the Church Calendar, or to the ordinary pattern of the Liturgy, but Scripture certainly doesn't forbid them

If men make up traditions that do not conflict with the Word of God - they are "permissable" in that view.

in Mark 7:6-13 Christ slam hammers traditions of man that conflict with scripture. But this leaves the door open for cases where traditions of man may just be things made up and yet are not specifically condemned by Bible statements.

In Mark 7 Jesus claimed that the way they were declaring their possessions to be gifted to the nation-church temple violated the law commanding that each person "Honor your father and mother". The gifting to the church did not specify "dishonor your parents" but in certain aspects of it - this is what it was doing and Christ called them out on it.

 

[Clare73]

To me, the Bible is with primacy over other things for what we should believe, though even as is said in the Bible we each have requirement to live without being contrary to our conscience. Even with that, believers generally grow, as they should, to trust more and more from the scriptures of the Bible.

1) Live according to our conscience only in matters which the Bible does not present as sinful.

2) Our conscience is to be informed by the Bible in regard to sin, and is accountable to God for what the Bible presents as sin.

 

[concretecamper]

Christ slam hammers traditions of man that conflict with scripture. But this leaves the door open for cases where traditions of man may just be things made up and yet are not specifically condemned by Bible statements.

Such as Sola Scriptura.

 

[Clare73]

Such as Sola Scriptura.

So where does Sola Scriptura conflict with Scripture?

Jesus made quite clear the authority of Scripture in his life, for he believed

the OT was the "word of God" in every detail (Mt 15:6, Lk 5:1, Lk 11:28, Jn 10:35),
that it was the truth of God vested with the authority of God and backed by the power of God (Mt 5:17-19).
He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the scripture cannot be broken." (Mt 4:5, Mt 4:7, Mt 4:10, Jn 10:35). God's word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?". . ."Have you not read. . .?". . ."Go and learn what this means. . ." (Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, Mt 12:5, Mt 19:4, Mt 21:16, Mt 21:42,
Mt 9:13).
Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the word of God:
he lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Lk 4:17-21, Mt 8:16-17, Mt 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Lk 18:31, Mk 8:31, Mk 9:31, Mk 10:33-34, Mt 26:24, Lk 22:37, Mt 26:53-56),
when he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47, Lk 24:27), and
he presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40, Jn 5:46-47).

Belief in the authority and truth of the OT was the very foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

And Scripture is the source of my whole knowledge and understanding of the authoritative truth of God.

 

[concretecamper]

So where does Sola Scriptura conflict with Scripture

Because Jesus tells us to listen to The Church.

Jesus made quite clear the authority of Scripture in his life. He believed

No one is arguing against the importance or authority of scripture.

If anyone wants to approach the Bible in any of the 5 different definitions of Sola Scriptura that have been advanced on this forum over the years, go for it. Just don't expect everyone to buy into the claim that the Bible teaches SS. SS is clearly a man made doctrine.

 

[Clare73]

Because Jesus tells us to listen to The Church.

No one is arguing against the importance or authority of scripture.

Are you not arguing that your "church" has authority over Scripture?

Does Jesus tell us the church has authority over the word of God written?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Because Jesus tells us to listen to The Church.

No one is arguing against the importance or authority of scripture.

Are you not arguing that your "church" has authority over Scripture?

Does Jesus tell us the church has authority over the word of God written?

The NT claim is Scripture is "God breathed" (II Tim. 3:16). This is something that can not be said about the authority of the church or tradition. The authority of Scripture is a catagory unto iself with NO EQUALS.

 

[concretecamper]

Are you not arguing that your "church" has authority over Scripture?

I'm arguing that His Church has authority. The argument isn't about the authority of scripture since scripture and His Church does not contradict each other.

Does Jesus tell us the church has authority over the word of God written?

Jesus explicitly commands us to listen to the Church. The Church tells us the Bible is Divinely inspired. So yes, we would do well to what the Bible teaches.

 

[concretecamper]

The NT claim is Scripture is "God breathed" (II Tim. 3:16). This is something that can not be said about the authority of the church or tradition. The authority of Scripture is a catagory unto iself with NO EQUALS

It's been show countless times that 2Tim3:16 references the Tanahk, not the Bible.

What Scriptures did Timothy know in his youth? Do the math, it ain't the NT

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

It's been show countless times that 2Tim3:16 references the Tanahk, not the Bible.

What Scriptures did Timothy know in his youth? Do the math, it ain't the NT

I noticed you avoided "God breathed" in your reply. The same Holy Spirit of the Old Testament writings, is the same of the NT writings. Nope, the authority of the church is NOT GOD BREATHED. It is a theological innovation.