Why I reject sola scriptura

[CCWoody]

You clearly are missing the implications of the question.

I think if they were to figure out the implications they would figure out that they are no different that we Protestants when it comes to figuring out the truth and coming to belief in something.

 

[linssue55]

I've been writing down my thoughts on why I abandoned Protestantism, and part of it is an analysis of sola scriptura as it’s taught in the Westminster Confession. I’m sure there’s nothing new here, but it was a good exercise and I’m more likely to remember it all now. I'd like to post it for others to review and comment on, especially for helpful bits about logical errors, clumsy phrasing or anything else I've missed.

There's a part me that hopes this will help my family understand why I did it. I'm afraid it's rather long. Thanks in advance.
-------------------------------


The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) says that the entire revealed word of God is contained in scripture, and that scripture is the sole inerrant rule of faith.

(Clause 1) “Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; (Clause 2) yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; (Clause 3) therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; (Clause 4) and afterwards...to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary... (Clause 5)Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: (list of 66 books). (Clause 6)All which are given by inspiration of God, (Clause 7)to be the rule of faith and life....(Clause 8)The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture...” (WCF, Chapter 1, Article 1/Article 2/Article 6)


Clause 1 summary: God’s existence and goodness is made known through nature. Catholics agree with this.

Clause 2 summary: That which we can know through nature about God and his will is insufficient to attain salvation. Catholics do not agree with this; insufficiency would be good grounds for an excuse. For purposes of this discussion we can let it pass.

Clause 3 summary: In various ways God revealed himself to us, and made it known that this revelation is his will for us. Agreed.

Clause 4 summary: God’s revelation was written down in its entirety, being completely contained in Sacred Scripture. We do not agree.

Clause 5 summary: The body of work (Sacred Scripture) that contains this revelation is comprised of 66 books. We do not agree, the correct number is 73.

Clause 6 summary: Sacred Scripture is given by the inspiration of God. Agreed.

Clause 7 summary: Sacred Scripture is the rule of faith and life. We do not agree, the rule of faith and life is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which together comprise the full deposit of Gods revelation.

Clause 8 summary: The whole counsel of God concerning salvation is expressly written in Sacred Scripture or may be deduced from it. We do not agree.
​

The WCF says that the task of interpreting Scripture has been entrusted solely to Scripture itself. The only authoritative source and infallible interpreter of God’s Word is the original, untranslated Hebrew and Greek texts.

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them...The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture...” (WCF Chapter 1, Article8/Article 10)​

And yet at the same time, the WCF proposes as an article of faith that the unlearned, using ordinary means, may attain a sufficient understanding of scripture.

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” (WCF, Chapter 1, Article 7)​

The WCF says that in trying to understand the meaning of the text, the individual believer can ultimately rely only on his subjective intuition that the Holy Spirit is guiding him. The very councils that codify doctrines are fallible, and thus cannot declare a rule of faith nor be relied upon to promulgate true doctrine:

“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture... yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts...All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.” (Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF Chapter 1, Article 5; Chapter 31, Article 4)​

This is in opposition to the clear text of scripture, which warns of the perils of the ignorant trying to understand scripture without guidance.

“Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Heb. 13:17)


“We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, "This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Pet. 1:16–21, 3:2)

“In them (Paul’s letters) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Pet. 3:16)
​

The list of the Canon is not given in scripture: no scriptural text contains a table of contents for the Bible. Thus WCF Ch.1, Art. 2, which proposes a specific list of books as an article of the faith, contradicts WCF Chapter 1 Articles 1, 6, 7 and 8, and Chapter 31 Article 4, which in total say that only scripture is authoritative and that a council cannot declare a rule of faith.

WCF Chapter 1, Articles 8 and 10, which in effect demand that each believer be fluent in ancient languages in order to understand scripture, contradicts WCF Chapter 1, Article 7, which states that even the unlearned can come to a sufficient understanding of scripture.

WCF Ch. 1, Art. 5, which leaves the individual believer to rely solely on his subjective sense that the Holy Spirit is working in his heart, contradicts WCF Ch. 1, Art 10, which demands that he rely solely on the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture.

The list of the canon is a matter of doctrinal dispute between Catholics and Protestants. According to the WCF, the ultimate authority in resolving this dispute can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, with each individual believer ultimately relying solely on his subjective sense that he correctly understands the meaning of texts written in a language he does not understand and has never read. After much study I’ve found that the Holy Spirit tells me that the Catholics are correct, and yet after much study Protestants find that the Holy Spirit tells them that the Catholics are wrong. So either God is a God of confusion, or sola scriptura is false. Given that sola scriptura is self-contradictory on at least three key points, and given that God is not a God of confusion, I find that sola scriptura is false.

(continued)

If you have bible doctrine resident in your soul (stability of soul) and growing in the grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, nothting can penatrate that shield of armour, not even Harry Potter. It is just a fantasy movie, nothiing more.

 

[chilehed]

I already corrected chilehed on this point twice. Why are you asking again?...

Actually, what you did was impugne my intelligence and motives, tell me that I didn’t know what I was talking about, neglect to explaine how it is that you think I got it wrong, and then accuse me of lacking charity.

I find this to be a less than helpful way of correcting people.

Forgive me for presuming that the writers of the Confession meant what they said. As far as I can tell, “in all controversies of religion the Church is to appeal to the Hebrew and Greek texts” means that the final appeal is to the Hebrew and Greek texts; “all councils may err and are not to be made a rule of faith” means that all councils may err and therefore cannot promulgate a rule of faith; and “all things which are necessary to be known are clearly propounded so that even the unlearned may attain a sufficient understanding” means that what one needs to know for salvation is so clear in scripture that even the ignorant can figure it out by reading the texts. This isn’t ambiguous stuff.

The only places the Confession comes close to saying how a regular Joe can know that his understanding of scripture is correct is in the phrases “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined...can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture...” and “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts”. You insist that these are referring to something other than a subjective sense, but have studiously avoided telling me that that something else is. Is it the councils that can’t be made a rule of faith because they can’t ever be fully trusted to speak the truth? Is it the translations from the Hebrew and Greek that aren’t authoritative, and from among which the individual must determine the best one (which requires him to understand Greek and Hebrew)? How, pray tell, does this “inward work” manifest itself in a practical way?

The logical structure of the Confession demands that we know what the canon is before we can avail ourselves of the Holy Spirit speaking in it, and yet the canon is itself an article of the faith that is not given in the texts. How, then are we to know what the canon is? First, the Confession offers a list given by a Council that says that it may have the list wrong so you can’t take it as a rule of faith, but then they go ahead and include it in the Confession as a rule of faith anyway. This isn’t any help at all. What remains is the “inward work of the Holy Spirit”, which being inward is by definition a subjective matter. I suppose that you may have the idea that one may judge the veracity of this inward work by the guidance of councils, but since that guidance is by definition unreliable then one can only determine which council is correct by turning back again to one’s own judgement on the matter, which scripture warns us not to do. And we can’t appeal to the text of scripture to determine whether or not this “inward work” is actually the Holy Spirit and not some other spirit, unless we know beforehand what texts are canonical and which aren’t.

The whole thing is a muddle. You can call me names until the cows come home, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Confession completely destroys any rational way to have ANY objective assurance that we can knew what the true canon is at all.

 

[A. believer]

Actually, what you did was impugne my intelligence and motives, tell me that I didn’t know what I was talking about, neglect to explaine how it is that you think I got it wrong, and then accuse me of lacking charity.

I find this to be a less than helpful way of correcting people.

Actually, I impugned your intelligence or your motives, not necessarily both. I then went on to tell you exactly how you got it wrong.

Forgive me for presuming that the writers of the Confession meant what they said. As far as I can tell, “in all controversies of religion the Church is to appeal to the Hebrew and Greek texts” means that the final appeal is to the Hebrew and Greek texts;

Yes, that's what it means. What it doesn't mean is that each individual believer has the ability or the responsibility to personally settle every controversy for himself. As I already told you, the Westminster divines believed in the authority of the church. What they rejected is the infallibility thereof.

“all councils may err and are not to be made a rule of faith” means that all councils may err and therefore cannot promulgate a rule of faith;

Now you're misquoting. What you quoted before was, "All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both,” not that they are not a rule of faith, like you're claiming now.

The rule of faith refers to the ultimate rule--the normer of doctrine. Scripture norms the creeds and confessions and is not normed by anything. I don't fault you for misunderstanding. I fault you for stiffening your neck and refusing to be corrected.

and “all things which are necessary to be known are clearly propounded so that even the unlearned may attain a sufficient understanding” means that what one needs to know for salvation is so clear in scripture that even the ignorant can figure it out by reading the texts. This isn’t ambiguous stuff.

It's not particularly ambiguous, but it does require some knowledge of the historical context, a little common sense, and a small dose of humility. Remember that one of the important principles of the Reformation was that the Scriptures should be available to everyone in their own language. A common literate person can receive the saving knowledge of the gospel by reading the text in a language he knows, not in a foreign language. Knowledge of the original languages, however, is sometimes necessary for resolving theological disputes. Resolving theological disputes, although, not necessary for salvation, is an important function of the church.

Keep in mind that some of the disputes between the Reformers and Rome were over doctrines resting on translation errors in the Vulgate.

The only places the Confession comes close to saying how a regular Joe can know that his understanding of scripture is correct is in the phrases “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined...can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture...” and “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts”. You insist that these are referring to something other than a subjective sense, but have studiously avoided telling me that that something else is. Is it the councils that can’t be made a rule of faith because they can’t ever be fully trusted to speak the truth? Is it the translations from the Hebrew and Greek that aren’t authoritative, and from among which the individual must determine the best one (which requires him to understand Greek and Hebrew)? How, pray tell, does this “inward work” manifest itself in a practical way?

Let's break this down. Do you understand the difference between a sufficient understanding of Scripture for salvation and an exhaustive and infallible understanding of every doctrine of Scripture? You seem to be conflating the two which is leading to a great deal of confusion.

Then you bring in a completely unrelated concept--that of our inner persuasion of the divine authority of Scripture. Certainly ones inner persuasion is always "subjective" since it relates to individuals (subjects) as opposed to God (the Supreme Object). But, as I said earlier, this is not even talking about ones persuasion of any given interpretation of Scripture, but our persuasion of Scripture's nature and authority. And this "inward work" manifests itself in a practical way in one's attitude and response toward the Word of God. It's manifested in obedience to the gospel.

The logical structure of the Confession demands that we know what the canon is before we can avail ourselves of the Holy Spirit speaking in it, and yet the canon is itself an article of the faith that is not given in the texts. How, then are we to know what the canon is? First, the Confession offers a list given by a Council that says that it may have the list wrong so you can’t take it as a rule of faith, but then they go ahead and include it in the Confession as a rule of faith anyway. This isn’t any help at all. What remains is the “inward work of the Holy Spirit”, which being inward is by definition a subjective matter. I suppose that you may have the idea that one may judge the veracity of this inward work by the guidance of councils, but since that guidance is by definition unreliable then one can only determine which council is correct by turning back again to one’s own judgement on the matter, which scripture warns us not to do. And we can’t appeal to the text of scripture to determine whether or not this “inward work” is actually the Holy Spirit and not some other spirit, unless we know beforehand what texts are canonical and which aren’t.

Again, this reflects a serious misunderstanding of the nature and working of the church. No doubt, you're harboring the usual RC misconceptions about the church's reception of the canon as well, which add to your confusion. I don't even know where to begin to sort this out. My advice, though, would be for you to just adopt a little humility--to discard the presumption that the Westminster Divines were idiots, and to do some serious research.

The whole thing is a muddle. You can call me names until the cows come home, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Confession completely destroys any rational way to have ANY objective assurance that we can knew what the true canon is at all.

Is "objective assurance" of the canon the root issue you're trying to address?

 

[chilehed]

One of the parts you're missing is that one cannot use scripture to determine what scripture is without knowing what scripture is beforehand. That's a logical reality that no amount of bluster, rudenss or condescension can change.

Surely you're not suggesting that each of these prooftexts, individually, must constitute a stand alone defense of sola Scriptura for them to be valid in conjunction with one another!

That's exactly the position the Reformers put themselves in by claiming that the final appeal in resolving any theological dispute is to be made to scripture alone.

The Confession gives Luke 16:29/31, Eph 2:20, 2 Tim 3:16, and Rev 22:18-19 as proof texts in support of its determination that the canon has 66 books, which is a matter in dispute. If the final resolution is to appeal to the texts themselves, it is necessary for the texts to include a list of canonical books. Which they don't, either singly or together.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

One of the parts you're missing is that one cannot use scripture to determine what scripture is without knowing what scripture is beforehand. That's a logical reality that no amount of bluster, rudenss or condescension can change.

Two issues here...


1. The question of the Canon and the principle of Sola Scriptura are two different things. Whether one includes the DC books or not, the principle is exactly the same. Sola Scriptura means that the Final Authority, the "Norm that norms" is the Bible Alone. Other things certainly may be used, but are subject to the Bible. Exactly which books are or aren't the "Bible" is a different issue. A rather moot one to me, since there are only a handfull of books in dispute - and in my Catholic Catechism Class and in my nearly 5 years of involvement in a Catholic Bible Study led by a priest, I can probably count on one hand the number of times those books were referenced.


2. Catholics (with LDS) add a second norm - Tradition. The Final Authority, the "norm that norms" for Catholics is the Bible and Tradition EQUALLY, both, on the same level, neither above or below the other. Ah, but WHAT, exactly, is Tradition? Unlike the Bible, where the issue is nearly fix for the past 1600 years, "Tradition" is a pretty tough issue to define, to corpus of such is very debatable! Our Eastern Orthodox unseparated brothers and sisters in Christ accept a smaller body of Tradition (and not exactly the same - it seems to me) than those who happen to be in the Roman Catholic Denomination, and in turn, most Protestants even less. Who has the correct corpus of Tradition? And who chooses what is and is not "Tradition" for those who happen to belong to the Roman Catholic Denomination? Catholics accept SOME things that Origen said - but others are heresy, they accept SOME things that Augustine said - but certainly not all. Of course, all of it is equally historic. There were early Christians who taught modalism, there where Gnostic Christians - they are all just as historical as any others. But the Roman Catholic Denomination has CHOSEN some things to be regarded as "Tradition." Not only so, but they have declared this "Tradition" that the Roman Catholic Denomination has selected to be the Final Norm for evaluating the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Denomination. The Denomination has simply chosen it's teachings, declared that Tradition and then made it the "norm that norms" the teachings of their denomination (so their teachings are insured to be correct).

That's exactly the position the Reformers put themselves in by claiming that the final appeal in resolving any theological dispute is to be made to scripture alone.

I realize that there are Christians who happen to be a part of the Roman Catholic Denomination that actually believe that their Denomination wrote, collected and gave us the Bible. I think most Christians don't agree with this; we believe God inspired, preserved and collected it. It's not OUR book, it's God's.

So, in Sola Scriptura, Protestants are subjecting the teachings of their denominations, congregations and teachers to an Authority they didn't create. It is an Authority OUTSIDE of them. This can be constrasted to those who steadfastly reject Sola Scriptura (Roman Catholic and LDS especially) that each has chosen it's OWN "Tradition," declared it Authoritative for the evaluation of Tradition, and then declared that their Tradition is therefore true.


MY view...


- Josiah



.

 

[A. believer]

One of the parts you're missing is that one cannot use scripture to determine what scripture is without knowing what scripture is beforehand.

When you say "determine what Scripture is" are you referring to a list of the canon or are you referring to an ontological definition of Scripture or are you referring to whether the given writing one is reading is Scripture?

That's exactly the position the Reformers put themselves in by claiming that the final appeal in resolving any theological dispute is to be made to scripture alone.

The list of books constituting the canon of Scripture is presupposed in the Confession. Those verses aren't prooftexts for the canon.

The Confession gives Luke 16:29/31, Eph 2:20, 2 Tim 3:16, and Rev 22:18-19 as proof texts in support of its determination that the canon has 66 books, which is a matter in dispute. If the final resolution is to appeal to the texts themselves, it is necessary for the texts to include a list of canonical books. Which they don't, either singly or together.

Can you point me to the portion of the Confession which says that these verses (or any verses) prove the extent of the canon?

 

[Catholic Dude]

When you say "determine what Scripture is" are you referring to a list of the canon or are you referring to an ontological definition of Scripture or are you referring to whether the given writing one is reading is Scripture?



The list of books constituting the canon of Scripture is presupposed in the Confession. Those verses aren't prooftexts for the canon.



Can you point me to the portion of the Confession which says that these verses (or any verses) prove the extent of the canon?

So the books are "presupposed"? thats a pretty big assumption to make, considering the claim no one is infallible, thats makes the canon of scripture just as subject to error as any of the councils.
Concerning the verses that prove the extent of the canon, there arent any, thats the point protestants refuse to recognize. Think of it this way, the men writing the confession were fallible, every word they wrote was subject to error, since the Bible doesnt list what books belong in it the fact that they had to list the individual books of the Bible shows that this list is subject to error because they are fallible.

 

[Bulldog]

Concerning the verses that prove the extent of the canon, there arent any, thats the point protestants refuse to recognize. Think of it this way, the men writing the confession were fallible, every word they wrote was subject to error, since the Bible doesnt list what books belong in it the fact that they had to list the individual books of the Bible shows that this list is subject to error because they are fallible.

But if scripture is self-authenticating, then it's a moot point.

 

[Catholic Dude]

But if scripture is self-authenticating, then it's a moot point.

How do you know? How is this not subjective?
Any religion/person can claim their scriptures are self authenticating.

 

[Bulldog]

How do you know? How is this not subjective?
Any religion/person can claim their scriptures are self authenticating.

Of course. Anyone can claim just about anything.

As for the reason why, I think Calvin put it well:

"But with regard to the question, How shall we be persuaded of its divine original, unless we have recourse to the decree of the church? This is just as if anyone should inquire, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? For the Scripture exhibits as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things of their taste." (Institutes, loc. cit., p. 76.)​

The smiple answer answer to your first question is that scripture is breathed-out by God. By it's nature, it is beyond beyond authentication from something outside of it (except for God, of course), because otherwise scripture would become subject to and of lesser authority than that.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Of course. Anyone can claim just about anything.

As for the reason why, I think Calvin put it well:

"But with regard to the question, How shall we be persuaded of its divine original, unless we have recourse to the decree of the church? This is just as if anyone should inquire, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? For the Scripture exhibits as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things of their taste." (Institutes, loc. cit., p. 76.)​

The smiple answer answer to your first question is that scripture is breathed-out by God. By it's nature, it is beyond beyond authentication from something outside of it (except for God, of course), because otherwise scripture would become subject to and of lesser authority than that.

This doesnt answer the question I asked previously about the decision being subjective, infact it admits to that being the basis for choosing the canon. I asked "How is this not subjective", to which Calvin says something like "youll know when you read it, its as clear as day, as black from white".

And then to say its "beyond authentication", then nobody has the right to claim what books belong in the canon at all. Based on this to even claim the canon is closed is already assuming an authority "beyond" what man is allowed.

 

[Bulldog]

This doesnt answer the question I asked previously about the decision being subjective, infact it admits to that being the basis for choosing the canon. I asked "How is this not subjective", to which Calvin says something like "youll know when you read it, its as clear as day, as black from white".

It's not a decision - it's an axiom.

And then to say its "beyond authentication", then nobody has the right to claim what books belong in the canon at all.

That's not what I meant.

Based on this to even claim the canon is closed is already assuming an authority "beyond" what man is allowed.

Not if that "authority" is the self-authentication of scripture itself.

The canon is not based on what man declares. It's based on what God has authenticated, and man recognizes this.

 

[chilehed]

Can you point me to the portion of the Confession which says that these verses (or any verses) prove the extent of the canon?

The construct of the confession demands it, since it sets up scripture alone, and not the church, as the final authority in all matters of theological dispute. While one can go on to refer to the guidance of councils or learned individuals, one ultimately cannot rely on them because there’s no guarantee that they’ll be correct. One of the major points of the Reformation was to reject the infallibility of church councils, and once one accepts that premise then one can’t turn around and rely on councils to provide guidance that’s guaranteed to be correct.

When you say "determine what Scripture is" are you referring to a list of the canon or are you referring to an ontological definition of Scripture or are you referring to whether the given writing one is reading is Scripture?

I’m referring to the first and last, in principle they are inseparable. We all agree that Sacred Scripture is the inerrant revealed word of God (that’s not to say it’s the only revealed word, mind you), the issue I’m dealing with is how does one objectively know what texts are Sacred Scripture and what ones are not.

The list of books constituting the canon of Scripture is presupposed in the Confession.

EXACTLY!!! And since identifying the canon correctly is an absolutely required article of the faith if one must use the texts alone to resolve theological disputes, then this presupposition yanks the foundation out from under sola scriptura. It’s a required article of the faith that is NOT taken from scripture.

Where did the Reformers get their presupposition?

By it's nature, it is beyond beyond authentication from something outside of it (except for God, of course), because otherwise scripture would become subject to and of lesser authority than that.

Not at all, that’s like saying that the Chief Steward of the King can’t make rulings in the King’s name without the King becoming a subject of the Steward. But that’s really fodder for a thread on the sucession of Apostolic Authority.

Hope y’all are having a very blessed and happy Thanksgiving.

 

[A. believer]

The construct of the confession demands it, since it sets up scripture alone, and not the church, as the final authority in all matters of theological dispute. While one can go on to refer to the guidance of councils or learned individuals, one ultimately cannot rely on them because there’s no guarantee that they’ll be correct. One of the major points of the Reformation was to reject the infallibility of church councils, and once one accepts that premise then one can’t turn around and rely on councils to provide guidance that’s guaranteed to be correct.


I’m referring to the first and last, in principle they are inseparable. We all agree that Sacred Scripture is the inerrant revealed word of God (that’s not to say it’s the only revealed word, mind you), the issue I’m dealing with is how does one objectively know what texts are Sacred Scripture and what ones are not.


EXACTLY!!! And since identifying the canon correctly is an absolutely required article of the faith if one must use the texts alone to resolve theological disputes, then this presupposition yanks the foundation out from under sola scriptura. It’s a required article of the faith that is NOT taken from scripture.

Where did the Reformers get their presupposition?

Not at all, that’s like saying that the Chief Steward of the King can’t make rulings in the King’s name without the King becoming a subject of the Steward. But that’s really fodder for a thread on the sucession of Apostolic Authority.

Hope y’all are having a very blessed and happy Thanksgiving.

Let's first acknowledge the distinction between the ontological question and the epistemological question here because sola Scriptura deals with the ontological question, while you want to dismiss it because it fails to deal with the epistemological question. First off, do you dispute that Scripture has inherent authority regardless of whether we recognize it or not? Or are you contending that Scripture only becomes authoritative when it's recognized as such?

 

[A. believer]

So the books are "presupposed"? thats a pretty big assumption to make, considering the claim no one is infallible, thats makes the canon of scripture just as subject to error as any of the councils.
Concerning the verses that prove the extent of the canon, there arent any, thats the point protestants refuse to recognize. Think of it this way, the men writing the confession were fallible, every word they wrote was subject to error, since the Bible doesnt list what books belong in it the fact that they had to list the individual books of the Bible shows that this list is subject to error because they are fallible.

Correct. Our faith in the correctness of the canon isn't grounded in faith in the infallibility of any man or group of men. Our faith in the canon is grounded in our faith in God's promise to preserve His Word for His people.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. (Matthew 24:35)
​

And in God's promise to gather a church.

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)
​

We then trust in God's divine providence to secure the means to do this, as opposed to the Roman Catholic answer which is to predetermine some supposedly necessary means by which He must do it.

 

[chilehed]

First off, do you dispute that Scripture has inherent authority regardless of whether we recognize it or not? Or are you contending that Scripture only becomes authoritative when it's recognized as such?

I'm not sure what you mean by "authority" and "authoritative". Sacred Scripture contains that revealed truth which God wished of consign to written form, and it is what it is even if we don't regognise it as such. If by "authority" you mean that it can interpret itself for us and tell us what it means, then no. It can't express itself in words other than the ones written.

But that's not really relevant to the reason I find sola scriptura to be incoherent.

Let's first acknowledge the distinction between the ontological question and the epistemological question here because sola Scriptura deals with the ontological question, while you want to dismiss it because it fails to deal with the epistemological question.

I dismiss it because it deals with both questions in an incoherent manner.

...as opposed to the Roman Catholic answer which is to predetermine some supposedly necessary means by which He must do it.

Nonsense. The Catholic position isn't that He must have done it by some necessary means, but that scripture and history shows that He did do it in a particular way that is very different than what Protestants believe.

But again, that's really for a discussion of the sucession of Apostolic Authority.

The bottom line is that when the Reformers presupposed a canon, they yanked the foundation from under sola scriptura: it's a required article of the faith that's not found in Sacred Scripture.

 

[A. believer]

I'm not sure what you mean by "authority" and "authoritative". Sacred Scripture contains that revealed truth which God wished of consign to written form, and it is what it is even if we don't regognise it as such. If by "authority" you mean that it can interpret itself for us and tell us what it means, then no. It can't express itself in words other than the ones written.

By authoritative, I mean are all men held accountable to it? Is it a standard by which all things are rightly judged? Or do the truths it contains become authoritative upon the validation of a body of men? Or perhaps, your position is the Gnostic one--that Scripture is an unintelligible bunch of words strung together that can only be deciphered by a specially chosen body of men who have been supernaturally imbued with the power to unlock its hidden meaning. Because judging by what you've written so far, this is how your position appears to me.

But that's not really relevant to the reason I find sola scriptura to be incoherent.

That's because you're still confusing epistemology and ontology.

I dismiss it because it deals with both questions in an incoherent manner.

Your misrepresentation of sola Scriptura is incoherent.

Nonsense. The Catholic position isn't that He must have done it by some necessary means, but that scripture and history shows that He did do it in a particular way that is very different than what Protestants believe.

But again, that's really for a discussion of the sucession of Apostolic Authority.

The "Catholic position" of the pop-apologists (whose footsteps you're following in) and the "Catholic position" of the papally appointed Catholic historians are two very different positions and interpretations of history. Also there's certainly no monolithic Protestant interpretation of history or tradition. I'm quite confident that you have no clue what I believe, and you certainly aren't showing any inclination to try and understand.

Incidentally, most Christians from every tradition are quite ignorant of church history or are only familiar with the spin their particular tradition puts on it.

The bottom line is that when the Reformers presupposed a canon, they yanked the foundation from under sola scriptura: it's a required article of the faith that's not found in Sacred Scripture.

No, it's a rule of faith logically derived from Scripture and history--which is precisely what you claim about the Roman Catholic rule of faith. Reject sola Scriptura if you like, but if you expect to be taken seriously, lose the double standard.

 

[chilehed]

No, it's a rule of faith logically derived from Scripture and history--which is precisely what you claim about the Roman Catholic rule of faith.

First you say that the canon was presupposed, then that it was derived from Scripture. Make up your mind, it can’t be both.

Incidentally, most Christians from every tradition are quite ignorant of church history or are only familiar with the spin their particular tradition puts on it.

I’m not impressed by ad hominem attack. “Most Christians” except for you, hmmm?

That's because you're still confusing epistemology and ontology.

You say thing like this, but studiously avoid a real explanation. Irrational arguments don’t become rational through the repetition of big words. If you have a rational argument that truly resolves the basic logical errors of the Confession, then present it and I’ll respond. So far all you’ve done is blow smoke.

 

[A. believer]

First you say that the canon was presupposed, then that it was derived from Scripture. Make up your mind, it can’t be both.

That's not what I said. I didn't say that the canon of Scripture is derived from Scripture. I said that the rule of faith, sola Scriptura, is derived from Scripture and history. Also, the principle of God's covenant people correctly discerning which writings fall into the ontological category of being Theopneustos or "God-breathed" is derived from Scripture and history. But the actual listing of the books, the canon, is not derived from Scripture. It's derived from certain historical contingencies.

The Catholic claim is that your rule of faith, the infallible magisterium, is derived from history. Contrary to that, the Protestant claim, is that our rule of faith, sola Scriptura, is. Our dispute is fundamentally over the correct interpretation of history.

Did you ever consider the question of how the Jews could have been held accountable by Jesus for disobeying Scripture when the Jews never had an infallible magisterium to declare their canon? Could the Jews have been vindicated if they responded to Jesus by saying, "We have no way of knowing which books are inspired of God and which are spurious because we have no infallible means by which we can discern this." If you believe that this response would have vindicated them before God, then I have nothing more to say to you on the matter. But if you recognize that it would not have, then you're beginning to understand.

I’m not impressed by ad hominem attack. “Most Christians” except for you, hmmm?

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, not a perceived insult. It would be a valid charge if I dismissed a reasoned argument on no other basis except the character of the person making it. But this isn't what's happening since I'm responding to every argument you're making. And although my knowledge of church history is fairly rudimentary, I believe I have a working knowledge of the broad outline of the issues relevant to our discussion. But my approach to history is to attempt to be fair-minded by not accepting facile sounding polemical versions of history (from either side) at face value. And I don't claim to be the only one who doesn't, but there are certainly many who don't know the first thing about fair-mindedness, and sadly, these people are often the first ones lining up for a dispute.

You say thing like this, but studiously avoid a real explanation. Irrational arguments don’t become rational through the repetition of big words. If you have a rational argument that truly resolves the basic logical errors of the Confession, then present it and I’ll respond. So far all you’ve done is blow smoke.

If you really believe this, then I don't know where to go from here. I've explained and explained, and if you can't (or won't) get it, then there's nothing more I can say. But you know, there are many people who do rightly understand the Protestant paradigm, but who reject it in principle, just as there are many people who understand the Catholic paradigm and reject it in principle. In fact, some rightly understand both, reject them both, and hold to an Eastern Orthodox paradigm. It's not as if you're bound to remain a Protestant if you dare to correct your misrepresentations. There's really nothing to fear in being open and fair-minded.