Preliminary Discussion
Sola Scriptura is a fundamental doctrine of the Reformation. If Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine, then the Reformation is based upon a false teaching derived from man and should be abandoned.
According to Wikipedia, sola scriptura is the doctrine which states -
The divine inspiration of scripture - The texts identified as scripture are said to be scripture for those texts have been identified as being authored by God. The divine authorship of the texts is termed inspiration. According to the Westminster Confession of Faith -
[9] 2PE 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 1JO 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Biblical inspiration infers the doctrine of the Trinity, whereby God is a Trinity of persons as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
For inspiration says the Holy Spirit is the author of the biblical text.
And the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Blessed Trinity.
Therefore the third person, infers the first and second persons of the Trinity.
Therefore biblical inspiration infers God is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
As biblical inspiration infers the doctrine of the Trinity, biblical inspiration also infers the doctrine of the supernatural (SN) order.
The SN order is a manner of existing and acting that is beyond the natural order.
The natural order is the realm in which natural things exist and act in accord with their natures. For example, man exists and acts to perform natural actions such as eating, walking and talking.
The existence and life of God as a Trinity is a way of living that is beyond the natural order, whereby by creature cannot act to naturally know God as a Trinity through a natural act of knowledge alone.
As the content of the SN order cannot be known within the natural order via any act within the natural order alone, the content of the SN can only be known via a SN act of God communicated within the natural order, which is beyond the power of the natural order*.
For example, man can naturally reason to truths, such as the truths of maths and science. Such reasoning is a natural act which arrives at truths within the nature of man to know through the natural act of reason. But man cannot reason to the existence of the life of the Trinity within God. For the Trinity is not within the natural order and is thereby not based upon 1) any principle of reason or 2) deduced by any argument of reason within the natural order.
Example using a principle of reason -
The principle of unity, whereby a thing is what it is, and is not another, cannot arrive at the Trinity, even though God is one nature, in accord with the principle of unity. For God as a Trinity is both one in accord with nature and three according to divine person. The Trinity of persons is thereby beyond the principle of unity encountered within the natural order.
Example using reasoned argument -
No reasoned argument can arrive at the conclusion that God is a Trinity, for the Trinity is the sole uncreated content of the SN order, which is from its nature as SN, beyond natural knowledge. Some theologians such as Richard of St Victor have attempted to argue for the existence of the Trinity from reason alone, but have failed. The failure of Richard's arguments is not only from errors contained within his reasoning, but from the false premise that reason alone can arrive at the truth of the Trinitarian God. For reason alone is always based upon natural principles and never SN principles. Such natural principles must always arrive at natural truths proportionate to the natural principles. As the SN truth of the Trinity is beyond natural principles, then any natural principle of reason cannot conclude to a knowledge of the content of the SN order.
* The supernatural, which is naturally beyond the natural order, means the content of the SN order can only be given to men by God, in a top-down manner and not a bottom-up manner as through reason, as shown above, or by faith, as shown below (objection 2). The supernatural to natural relationship is one of greatest (SN), to lesser (natural), whereby any reality in the SN order must be made known to man, by God, who acts from the SN order to then grant men know something of the SN order. Such a manner of revealing divine truth may be either by 1) God directly inspiring the prophets, or 2) the teaching authority of the church as the institution through which God chooses to establish and act through to convey SN truths. Both 1 and 2 are related to each other and may be discussed later.
Conclusion - The doctrine of Biblical Inspiration infers the supernatural order, whereby neither 1) the content of the SN order can be known by human reason alone, nor 2) the divine authorship of a text can be known by reason alone.
Biblical Inspiration in relation to biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Infallibility.
Biblical Inspiration implies both biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Infallibility. For a text that is authored by God is without error, for God as the principle author can only ever act perfectly and thereby without error to write a text without error. Thereby, because both biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Infallibility assume a text is without error in different respects, the divine authorship of the scriptures infers both biblical Inerrancy and Biblical Infallibility.
Biblical inerrancy is a property of Biblical Inspiration whereby the text has no errors concerning any statements contained within the text. Such errors, if found, could be known by natural reason alone. Hence because natural reason can arrive at the conclusion that a particular text is in error on a matter of science, or historical fact, Biblical inerrancy is then a natural effect of Biblical Inspiration. For example, if the biblical text said King Zemekiah did exist, and historical research found that rather than king Zemekiah, king Zedekiah instead existed, then the error in the text of King Zemekiah is an error naturally known to man.
The errors that can be known to man through the reason of science are errors arrived at through acts within the natural order. Such errors are sufficient to discredit any claim that a text is authored by God, for God cannot author any error, only if the errors are real. Yet contrarily, if no errors were found within a text, one cannot conclude to the SN authorship of the bible. For it is a non sequitur for a series of natural truths contained within any text to have been written by a SN author, such as the Holy Spirit. The non sequitur is evident by noting that any text written by man, such as a maths text, can be without error, but such inerrancy of the text does not infer the author of the maths text is God as the Holy Spirit.
Similarly, biblical infallibility concerning matters of faith and morals does not conclude to the divine authorship of the text. For a text may be adequately defended to demonstrate no error on faith or morals exists in the texts, but a lack of errors in faith and morals does not conclude to the divine authorship of the text. It is a non sequitur to conclude that no errors on faith and morals concludes to the divine authorship of a text, for a text may have been written by men after the fact, and without any help from a divine, SN agent.
Conclusion - Biblical Inspiration does infer biblical inerrancy and biblical infallibility. But inerrancy and infallibility of a text whereby the text lacks any errors, is insufficient to conclude to divine authorship of any text, including the biblical text.
An argument against sola scriptura.
An argument against sola scriptura is presented below using the information given above.
Sola scriptura is the doctrine that states the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.
But sola scriptura includes the doctrine of divine inspiration of the biblical text, which in turn infers the supernatural order and doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility of the biblical texts.
But biblical Inspiration infers 1) the supernatural order, and 2) a supernatural author, whereby neither of which can be known by reason alone.
And inerrancy and infallibility of the biblical text do not infer from reason alone that the biblical text is inspired by God.
So from reason alone, it is not possible to know that the Holy Spirit exists, nor that the Holy Spirit is the author of any text, even if the text is proven to be without error.
Hence, because sola scriptura infers the doctrines of 1) the content supernatural order (Trinity), and 2) the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility of the biblical texts, which cannot be known by reason, then sola scriptura is without reason.
What is without reason is arbitrary and thereby unreasonable.
What is unreasonable, is not to be held as reasonable.
What is not to be held as reasonable is against human nature as rational.
What is against human nature as rational is irrational.
What is irrational is false.
Hence sola scriptura is false.
Objections to the Above Argument Proposed and Answered -
Objection 1 - Reason may be used in a manner that is not apodictic to show the bible is without error and therefore inspiration of the text is probable, whereby Christians have good reason to believe in the doctrine of biblical inspiration.
Answer 1 - Reason may conclude that a text is without error, but inspiration is not inferred by inerrancy. Hence an inerrant text has no value at all to conclude a text is inspired by God, for inerrancy is merely a natural property of a text, whereas inspiration is a supernatural property of a text. A natural property of a text does not infer any supernatural property of a text.
Objection 2 - Reason may not conclude to the inspiration of a text, but man is not restricted to reason alone and may make an act of faith that a text is inspired. Once faith is used to establish a text is inspired then the doctrine of sola scriptura may then be derived from the text, along with the use of reason.
Answer 2 - Faith cannot establish either that any text is inspired, nor the content of any inspired text, for faith is only a virtue whereby man believes what God has revealed on account of God who is prime truth has revealed those truths. Faith then can only believe what God has revealed and faith then cannot establish that 1) any text is inspired, nor 2) the extent of the content of the inspired text, unless God has revealed 1 and 2. Furthermore, because sola scriptura states the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, then 1 and 2 must be found in the scriptures alone. Hence Christian faith must act along with the doctrine of sola scriptura to determine the inspiration of the biblical text. But because neither the inspiration of the biblical text, nor the extent of the inspired biblical text is ever taught within the biblical text, Christian faith cannot be used to conclude to 1 and 2. Hence there is no means, through either reason, or Christian faith to conclude to the inspiration of the biblical text.
Objection 3 - The biblical text has numerous statements about inspiration, claiming that scripture is God's Word, and thereby has God as the author. Hence the fact that a text is inspired may be deduced. Following this deduction, the extent of the biblical text my then be deduced from the truths contained within those texts.
Answer 3 - Statements such as all scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16) do not conclude to the existence of any inspired text. For the definition of scripture does not conclude to the existence of a text that is inspired. Further, a definition of inspiration in 2 Tim 3:16 does not prescribe the means by which an inspired text is identified. Hence any argument that attempts to provide the means to determine the extent of the inspired text must do so apart from the biblical text which provides no method. Hence any method no described within the text is in breach of sola scriptura, which assumes such a method is prescribed within the sacred text.
Objection 4 - If neither reason nor faith can be used to determine if a text is inspired, or the extent of an inspired text, then one may assume the biblical text is inspired.
Answer 4 - To assume the biblical text is inspired means the Christian does not have adequate foundation in reason or faith to establish the doctrines of biblical inspiration nor the doctrine of sola scriptura. Hence to assume a text is inspired does not provide adequate reason to promote Christian faith in doctrines such as the Trinity, redemption, salvation and so on.
Objection 5 - One may refer to history and tradition to conclude to the extent of the inspired text and thereby save the doctrines of sola scriptura and biblical inspiration.
Answer 5 - An appeal to history, such as the use of biblical books in the liturgy, or the canon of scripture pronounced by church councils only means the biblical canon is established from authorities outside the biblical text. Such a method must contradict the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, which excludes any ultimate authority outside the biblical text to be used above the authority of the biblical text to determine Christian doctrine. As the inspiration of the biblical text is said to be established by authorities apart from and above the bible, the extent of the biblical canon and inspiration of the biblical texts are established in a manner which contradicts sola scriptura.
Objection 6 - The inspiration of the biblical text may be inferred by using the example of the first believers who believed, based upon the authority of the Word spoken to them. Hence examples found within the biblical text may be used as the foundation to establish the canon of scripture and then derive the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Answer 6 - The example of men acting to believe does not infer any text is known to be inspired through any method using reason alone, or faith alone, or a combination of reason and faith. Nor does belief in the early church infer any NT text is inspired. Men converted to Christianity in the apostolic age due to the preaching of the apostles, whereby the apostles persuaded many of the truth of Christs passion and resurrection, along with the miracles performed by the apostles.
The Christian belief that came about through St Paul and other apostles debating the Jews using the OT texts in relation to the Christ event only means the OT was understood to be inspired at that time by the Jews, for Israel had the authority of the chair of Moses (Matt 23:1-3) and the use of the OT texts within the Mosaic covenant liturgy. For the Jew, inspiration implied the authority of Israel as a kingdom of priests to authoritatively determine the extent of the OT canon. Such an authority is excluded by the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Furthermore, early Christian faith was based upon apostolic oral tradition from the apostles preaching, which did not form the content of the inspired NT text. Preaching and conversion to Christianity does not conclude to any NT text as being inspired. Preaching and conversion on concludes to grace being granted to preach and convert and nothing more.
Final Conclusion - If one holds to the doctrine of sola scriptura one is unable to establish that any text is inspired, nor the biblical text is inspired. Hence, because the Reformation is based upon sola scriptura, the Reformation should be abandoned.
JM
No comments:
Post a Comment