A Respose to Jordan Cooper's - A Defense of Sola Scriptura

Some problems with sola scriptora (SS)

1) SS cannot establish the canon of scripture, for every method that uses evidence from the text such as prophecy, the truth of the text, or the witness of miracles always concludes to a circular argument. The text records prophecy, therefore the text is inspired, because the text is inspired, the text records prophecy.

2) SS infers private interpretation of the text, which is against the nature of public revelation.

3) SS always ends in denominationalism which is against church unity.

4) SS ignores the binding authority of the church as recorded in Acts 15 and church history and makes the believer the final arbiter of the meaning of divine revelation.

5) SS requires the arbitrary construct of God breathed inferring only the scriptures are infallible, whilst ignoring the many evidences for infallibility of the church in the scriptures. The church is the spotless bride (Eph 5), so the church cannot sin. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), so she cannot teach error on faith and morals. And the church has the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:18-19, 18:18). The church must then bind and loose without falling from the truth and committing sin. The biblical church is infallible, impeccable and indefectable. Such is the church of history not found in the Lutheran denomination invented 1500 years after Christ.

6) SS infers an exegetical method not taught in scripture. Therefore SS does not contain any method to understand the text contained within SS. Therefore SS always concludes to an agnostic text without much value.

7) Church history is against SS, for the resolution of doctrinal controversies involves the use of scripture, tradition and the authority of church councils.

8) If SS is contained with scripture SS involves a self referencing fallacy. SS is true because the scriptures teach SS. And the scriptures are true because SS is true.

9) SS is not contained within scripture, SS involves the fallacy of a disproportionate authority outside scripture to establish the scriptures as the ultimate authority. References to the church or the fathers to establish SS only means external witnesses are appealed to, to point to a higher authority. Yet the lower authority cannot ever establish a higher authority, but only a higher can establish the lower.

10)SS cannot be established from within or without the scriptures, therefore the doctrine is always never established.

11) The definition of SS is always false because SS is always false. Jordan's explanation of SS is merely his own private understanding of a false doctrine. SS is not taught in scripture, for scripture cannot teach a false doctrine.

12) SS as taught by Jordan requires no infallible authority other than the scriptures because the scriptures are God breathed. And yet the gospel was given as a tradition by preaching and letter (2 Thes 2:15) in a binding way for believers. Scriptures participate in the gospel tradition which is binding, and as such, tradition must also be infallible. For if tradition is not infallible, then St Paul was binding believers to an oral and written tradition which was fallible and may contain errors. And if the letters do not contain errors and are binding, then the oral tradition must also not contain errors and also be binding. Both the oral preaching and the letters are from the same tradition which is both binding on believers. If one element of the tradition is infallible as the word of God, and the other is the word of God, then the other element of the same tradition is also infallible.

Sola Scriptora (SS) is false because it excludes the infallibility of tradition, but requires the infallibility of tradition from Christ. SS is dependent upon the infallibility of oral tradition because the gospel was first taught by Jesus who is the infallible God who always teaches the truth. Scripture is itself always dependent upon the original oral tradition from Christ. Therefore scripture can only be infallible if tradition is infallible.

The entire new testament is based upon the person, work and teaching of Christ, and the consequent oral tradition from Christ and the apostles. Only after the gospel was preached, were some gospels and letters written. If the oral tradition which preceded the written text was fallible, the written texts, based upon fallible oral tradition are also fallible. One may object and say the scriptures are God breathed and infallible, regardless of the fallibility of tradition. But oral tradition is also God breathed because oral tradition is from Jesus who is the God man who spoke the gospel.

Any reference to the exclusive nature of scripture as god breathed must exclude the God breathed nature of Jesus's oral teachings. SS includes the problematic proposition that scripture is without error, but Jesus teachings were not infallible. Such an error is open to the charge of making Jesus teach error, when as God He cannot teach any error.

Jordan's version of SS has absolutely no chance of success at all.