Sola scriptura is a doctrine of the Reformation that is defined at Wikipedia as -
Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.
The Scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the Christian Church, and so on. However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.
Some problems with sola scriptura as defined above are presented below –
1) The doctrine of sola scriptura (SS) is not found within the biblical canon. No verse states the doctrine and not combination of verses can be used to arrive at the doctrine of SS. Hence SS is a doctrine outside the scriptures, which contradicts the doctrinal content of SS which says the doctrine must be found within the scriptures.
2) Because the doctrine of sola scriptura (SS) is not found, nor derived from the biblical text, SS is then defined according to the person who wants to define it. Hence the doctrine of SS is only a subjective description of what its adherents want it to mean. As SS is only subjective, SS is merely the opinion of some, who hold to the doctrine, without any mandate from revelation.
3) SS assumes a method or methods required to interpret the text. Such methods are not specified within the text, hence SS is dependent upon methods which must be brought to the text. As such methods vary widely, methods may be used to arrive at contrary conclusions regarding the meaning of the text. Hence SS is in practice unworkable.
4) SS rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. Yet the bible does not reject any infallible authority outside the bible. Hence SS rejects what the bible does not reject.
5) SS assumes the rejection of any original infallible authority other than the Bible, yet there is no evidence within the NT that Jesus wanted only a text to be the infallible rule of faith during the apostolic age. Hence SS assumes Jesus wanted SS to be true, even though there is no evidence in the bible that Jesus wanted SS to be true. Hence SS requires its adherents to be agnostic about the divine intent behind SS.
6) SS rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible, and thereby rejects any oral tradition from the apostles as being from God. Yet the apostolic age assumes the gospel was predominantly preached by the apostles to the people. Such preaching occurred without the NT. Hence if the preaching was not infallible, then the apostles may have been in error when spreading the good news. SS then concludes that during the apostolic age, the apostles may have taught false doctrines which could have led people to hell.
7) SS is not found in church history prior to the reformation, nor in the bible. Hence SS is an invention of the reformers. Such an invention means the reformers invented their own doctrine apart from revelation. Hence SS is not revealed by God, but only a human invention.
8) As SS is not in the bible, nor church history, then SS is an invention of the reformation. But SS says the sole infallible rule of faith is the scriptures. Hence the reformers must have had either an 1) infallible or 2) fallible knowledge that SS was true. If 1), then SS excludes such knowledge for that knowledge is only to be found in the reformers themselves apart from revelation. Hence SS infers a source of infallibility outside the confines of the doctrine, making the source of the doctrine inconsistent with the confines of infallibility as stated by SS.
If 2), then SS is a fallible doctrine that assumes the confines of infallibility to a known text. If so, to hold to SS infers nobody except God knows with certainty if the text alone is infallible.
9) SS assumes the original documents were inspired by God, but does not have anything to say about the numerous versions of the bible translations. As we only have access to translations and not the original inspired texts we cannot know which modern texts are infallible and which are not. Hence SS assumes the infallibility of the original texts, which does not carry over into the modern translations. Hence SS is impractical and of little use with regard to modern biblical translations.
10) SS assumes a biblical canon which is known to be infallible, yet there is more than one biblical canon in use by Christians and Jews. Hence SS assumes the unresolved problem of the biblical canon. One may argue that SS assumes the reformers had solved the canon problem, however the reformers who rejected the Catholic magisterium and assumed an authority of the individual believer, did not have the authority to resolve the canon. SS assumes a canon, where a canon cannot be found consistently among believers. Hence SS assumes to much that cannot be resolved by those who do not have the authority to determine the limits of the canon.
11) SS assumes a biblical canon which is known to be infallible, yet there are no criteria specified within the biblical canon to determine the extent of the canon. One may derive some criteria for the canon, but such criteria are always dependent upon the believers understanding of what inspiration means and infers. The lack of objective criteria for the meaning of inspiration and the effects of inspiration infer SS is always a doctrine founded upon the error of subjectivism.
12) SS says church council's and creeds are secondary sources have authority derived from the bible, yet the bible never states the church, or creeds must be derived from the bible, nor have any authority derived from the bible, nor are secondary sources below the bible. SS is then foreign to what the bible teaches regarding the authority of the church and creeds.
13) SS says the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible rue of faith and practice, yet there are many moral problems which have arisen since the formation of the canon that are not included in the bible. For example the modern problems associated with medical procedures, such as IVF, cloning, and surrogacy of children are not discussed in the bible, yet the Christian must make moral decisions about such, and other matters. As there are many moral problems not included in the scriptures, Christian morality cannot ever be restricted to the bible alone as the sole infallible source of doctrine and practice.
14) SS says the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible rue of faith and practice, yet nowhere in the bible does the text actually define in clear terms everything that must be believed and practiced to be a Christian. Hence the doctrine of SS assumes the Christian scriptures can be defined within the confines of Christianity, when Christianity is neither formally defined in the scriptures, nor in SS. Hence everything that must be believed and practiced to be Christian must be defined by another authority outside the scriptures and SS. Hence the proper definition of Christian requires an adherent of SS to rely upon both the bible as the sole infallible source of doctrine and practice, but also another source to correctly define what these so called infallible doctrines and practices are. Hence SS is an incoherent doctrine.
15) SS assumes access to the bible and the ability to read and comprehend the bible. As access to the bible was not available until after the invention of the printing press and much of the world still remains illiterate, SS is incompatible with human history and the human condition. Hence SS is false.
16) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet if this were so, the bible should be itself sufficient and no other means of understanding the bible is required. Yet the bible is taught in seminaries, where students are informed from professors of the denominational traditions which have emerged as interpretations of said text. SS assumes such traditions are subordinated to scripture, yet because those who hold to SS cannot agree on what the text means, then SS implies an agnosticism about the truth value of divine revelation.
SS assumes the bible is the infallible source of faith and morals, but in practice concludes that mankind really never knows the meaning of the infallible source of faith and morals. Hence SS is unworkable in practice.
17) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet SS is not in the church fathers, nor church councils, nor the bible. Hence SS is a secret doctrine invented by the reformers, like that of the Gnostics in the early church who held to a secret knowledge as the gospel. The doctrine of SS is then a novel doctrine that is fundamentally based upon the false notion of secret knowledge, whereby only the reformers of the 16th C knew the true gospel, based upon the secrets of SS and sola fide (which is another invention). Hence SS is a false doctrine.
18) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet the doctrine is really only an attempt to invent a false authority in a collection of books and thereby ignore the well established authority of tradition, scripture and the church's teaching magisterium. The three sources of authority are well sourced in church history from the time of the apostles, but must be ignored and the new, novel doctrine of SS promoted. The doctrine of SS is then at odds with the witness of church history.
19) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, which places too much weight on the biblical documents and insufficient weight on other sources of revelation. By ignoring tradition and the magisterium, the bible must then account for all matters of faith and morals, in all ages alone. As the bible does not do this, whereas the three sources of revelation in tradition, scripture and the church's teaching magisterium can account for all matters on faith and morals, the bible becomes like a fish out of water. As the fish cannot live without water, so too the bible cannot properly function without the proper support of the authority found in tradition, and the church's teaching magisterium. Hence the over emphasis of biblical authority at the expense of tradition, and the church's teaching magisterium infers SS is false.
20) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet the bible in both the old testament and new testament was given to a faith community, which had its own traditions and priests who passed down the meaning of the scriptures to the community. The doctrine of SS attempts to ignore or at least downplay the role of the oral traditions, and priestly teaching on the biblical documents. In doing so SS must act as a doctrine that is at odds with the intent of those documents - to be read within the living tradition of the faith community. Hence SS is false, or at least deeply flawed.
18) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet the doctrine is really only an attempt to invent a false authority in a collection of books and thereby ignore the well established authority of tradition, scripture and the church's teaching magisterium. The three sources of authority are well sourced in church history from the time of the apostles, but must be ignored and the new, novel doctrine of SS promoted. The doctrine of SS is then at odds with the witness of church history.
19) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, which places too much weight on the biblical documents and insufficient weight on other sources of revelation. By ignoring tradition and the magisterium, the bible must then account for all matters of faith and morals, in all ages alone. As the bible does not do this, whereas the three sources of revelation in tradition, scripture and the church's teaching magisterium can account for all matters on faith and morals, the bible becomes like a fish out of water. As the fish cannot live without water, so too the bible cannot properly function without the proper support of the authority found in tradition, and the church's teaching magisterium. Hence the over emphasis of biblical authority at the expense of tradition, and the church's teaching magisterium infers SS is false.
20) SS assumes the sole infallible rule of faith and morals is the Christian bible, yet the bible in both the old testament and new testament was given to a faith community, which had its own traditions and priests who passed down the meaning of the scriptures to the community. The doctrine of SS attempts to ignore or at least downplay the role of the oral traditions, and priestly teaching on the biblical documents. In doing so SS must act as a doctrine that is at odds with the intent of those documents - to be read within the living tradition of the faith community. Hence SS is false, or at least deeply flawed.
JM
No comments:
Post a Comment