The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, simply put, is the belief that the Bible, the Word of God alone is the final authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice. Where Popes or church councils have seemed to violate the plain meaning of Scripture on these matters, it is Scripture alone that has the power of veto, it does not stand side by side in authority with tradition.
The most common objection I have heard from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers to this doctrine is that it is not itself found in Scripture. Nor is the list (canon) of books that ought to count as Scripture found in Scripture. At first brush this seems rather embarrassing, if not outright contradictory. But I feel this objection has been given far more attention than it deserves, and here I will attempt a brief response.
First, a simple but all too important point must be made: There are many items of true knowledge to be found outside of the Scriptures, and we can know them. My belief that the external world exists (including the Bible I’m holding in my hands) is one such item of knowledge. But this belief, it could be argued, is found at least implicitly within Scripture. Fair enough. Another example would be the deliverances of modern Science, or of History beyond the date of the last New Testament book. The Bible is neither a Science nor a History textbook. But no one would attempt to argue that the doctrine of sola scriptura precludes Christians from engaging in and learning from these disciplines.
Likewise, I see no reason why the list of books determined to be canonical or the doctrine of sola scriptura itself cannot be such items of knowledge, arrived at by sound arguments and the use of God-given reason.
To illustrate the point, one need only study church history. In the earliest days after the Apostles, there were a few books widely accepted as Scripture (such as the letters of Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas). There was no single council convened to answer the question of which books belonged in the canon and which did not. There were several, some with slightly differing opinions than others. There were also prominent individuals who compiled their own lists (such as Athanasius, who was probably the first whose list comprised only and all of the 27 books we now call the New Testament). What is important to note about all of these is that each group or individual offered arguments on behalf of their selections. The church did not arbitrarily pick which books it liked and which it didn’t. Good reasons were given for including books like Revelation and excluding Clement and Hermas, and in the end, the best arguments won the day. And very recently, such arguments came in handy once more, as many Christians, especially Catholics, had to rebut the claims of the best selling Da Vinci Code.
If this was sufficient to convince the church at the time, why not now? Why now must infallible church authority be added to the mix in order for us to be confident that we have the right canon? Catholic and Orthodox Christians readily admit that the church never sat down and self-consciously used its belief in its own infallible authority to declare the canon into existence by fiat. So why is infallibility necessary to be confident in the reliability of the canon today? This at least seems to lead us to the conclusion that the list of books belonging in the canon need not be in Scripture itself in order for sola scriptura to be coherent.
But what of the original charge, that sola scriptura itself is not discovered by Scripture alone? Again, this objection simply misses the point. If I have good reason to believe, based on the best evidence (both historical and logical) that the Bible (in its final, canonized form) is the infallible Word of God, and moreover, if I likewise have good reason to believe, based on the best evidence, that no other earthly institution bears the mark of divine infallibility, then sola scriptura follows quite naturally. It is a deliverance of sound argument and reason, and need not be found in Scripture itself (which would be circular anyway).
***
As a side note, it’s worth pointing out that whatever can be said in favor of church infallibility can likewise be said in favor of the infallibility of Scripture, and whatever can be said against the doctrine of sola scriptura can likewise be said against the infallibility of the church. Consider, upon what basis does the church claim infallible authority? If the basis is on either tradition or Scripture (which is really a written derivation of tradition anyway), then the argument is circular. But if the basis is upon reason (or even faith…which are by no means opposed), then whatever can be said for church infallibility can be said for sola scriptura.
(I recognize that my Catholic and Orthodox brothers have other concerns with sola scriptura, but in this brief post I meant only to deal with this one common objection).
David–
You wrote:
“The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, simply put, is the belief that the Bible, the Word of God alone is the final authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice. Where Popes or church councils have seemed to violate the plain meaning of Scripture on these matters, it is Scripture alone that has the power of veto, it does not stand side by side in authority with tradition.”
Saying Scripture is the final authority is not enough. It would be more accurate to say that it is the *only* authority. For saying it is *final* could be construed in terms that are compatible with distinct sources of authority. For instance, if there are infallible interpreters of the Bible, but they cannot add anything to the content of Christian teaching and must only interpret what is already in the Bible, then this would make Scripture final, but would be compatible with there being unrevisable theological statements that are external to the Bible.
Also, it isn’t a matter of Popes or councils violating the plain meaning of Scripture; it would have to be a matter of them violating the *actual* meaning of Scripture. “Plain” is not the same as “actual”.
Admittedly, saying “Scripture alone has the power to veto” is getting closer to the Protestant ideal. But even that could be construed as being compatible with interpreters of Scripture having the power to veto.
I think a better definition would be as follows: Sola Scriptura is the view that there are no sources of infallible Christian teaching that are distinct from the Bible. This definition doesn’t leave ambiguity with the question of “finality”; it affirms the finality of Scripture but interprets it in a way that isn’t compatible with there being external infallible interpretations of Scripture (which would be a different sense of finality that isn’t compatible with SS). (note: The Orthodox believe in the finality of Scripture too: the sole source of dogmatic content for trinitarian theology and Christology is the Bible. But this view is clearly compatible with saying there have been infallible interpretations of the Bible that are distinct from the Bible.) This definition also doesn’t make an appeal to the apparent truths gleaned from exegetical method (“plain meaning”) as a basis for questioning the authority of other interpreters; rather it says that none of those interpreters’ views carry any kind of divine normativity (none of them are infallibly authoritative). And it also doesn’t appeal to “veto” language, which the Orthodox view described above could claim in some sense.
So although I think your’e on the right track, this defintion seems clearer. What do you think?
You wrote:
“As a side note, it’s worth pointing out that whatever can be said in favor of church infallibility can likewise be said in favor of the infallibility of Scripture, and whatever can be said against the doctrine of sola scriptura can likewise be said against the infallibility of the church. Consider, upon what basis does the church claim infallible authority? If the basis is on either tradition or Scripture (which is really a written derivation of tradition anyway), then the argument is circular. But if the basis is upon reason (or even faith…which are by no means opposed), then whatever can be said for church infallibility can be said for sola scriptura.”
What if there is a quality that is a necessary precondition for something to be infallible Christian teaching that can be ascribed to the Bible from a non-Sola Scriptura framework, that can’t be ascribed to the Bible if the SS framework is true? So long as this is possible, (even if it can’t actually happen) it seems like there might be a possibility that church infallibility can have thigns said for it that might not be said in favor of the doctrine of sola Scriptura. And in that case, your modal claim is false (that necessarily if something is a basis for believing in Church infallibility, it is a basis for believing in SS).
What property I’m referring to will have to wait for an actual post where I address these issues in detail instead of briefly critiquing your definitions. WOQ hasn’t ever actually done a detailed statement of our arguments against SS or Sola Fide; so expect that coming soon, including a response to your arguments here.
MG,
Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. I’ve been busy debating SS with my Catholic friend over at the A-Team.
You said: “Saying Scripture is the final authority is not enough.”
Well, I thought the veto thing along with saying that tradition does not hold equal authority was clear enough, but point taken.
You said: “What if there is a quality that is a necessary precondition for something to be infallible Christian teaching that can be ascribed to the Bible from a non-Sola Scriptura framework, that can’t be ascribed to the Bible if the SS framework is true?”
I’m sensing a possible miscommunication here, but since I’m not sure exactly what you mean, I can’t say for sure. Here’s what I meant to say. Any method or rationale that can be used to argue for church infallibility (whether it be an argument from Biblical evidence, or history, or just good reason) can also be used to argue for SS. In other words, if you have to use good (but fallible) human reason to arrive at the conclusion that the church is infallible, then church infallibility doesn’t escape the problem that is supposedly posed to SS. Do you see what I’m getting at?
To put it another way, the argument I was addressing in my original post was supposed to show that SS is either contradictory or incoherent (or just problematic in some way). For example, Mark seemed to think that Sproul’s assertion that Scripture was a “fallible collection of infallible books” was problematic at best. The only point I wish to make is that in order to arrive at the conclusion that the church is infallible, you must likewise use fallible human reason. And if it is OK to fallibly decide that the church is infallible, why is it not OK to fallibly decide which books of the Bible are infallible? Or to fallibly come to the conclusion that the Bible alone is infallible, and no other source of tradition?
I fear that I still haven’t been clear, but I’ll stop and let you respond.
“The only point I wish to make is that in order to arrive at the conclusion that the church is infallible, you must likewise use fallible human reason. And if it is OK to fallibly decide that the church is infallible, why is it not OK to fallibly decide which books of the Bible are infallible? Or to fallibly come to the conclusion that the Bible alone is infallible, and no other source of tradition?”
All Christians agree that God is infallible.
Most Christians agree that God has successfully communicated himself to humans in and through some things (whether the Scripture authors only, or all the Saints, or all Christians, or the natural world, etc.)
The problem with saying that “the Bible alone” is infallible is a definitional one: Can the Bible speak for itself, or is there necessarily always a human mediator between “what it says,” and me hearing, grasping, interpreting, and applying what it says? Whether the mediator is myself alone or my pastor or my whole reformed tradition, there is no such thing as “the Bible alone,” but only “people speaking.
The only options Christians have is to decide which group of people they think are properly following God’s lead, by obeying his Word, wherever his Word is to be found– Is it this group, or that group? Is it me? Who correctly interprets the Bible? Who correctly applies it?
I said, ‘most Christians agree that God has successfully communicated himself to humans in and through some things.’
Most Christians would further agree that at least sometimes he communicates himself and his will through people.
Some Protestants say the Authors of Scripture alone, and nobody else, because God chose them to write infallibly.
Some Protestants say every Christian, because every Christian has the Holy Spirit.
Catholic/Orthodox say the Authors of Scripture (because they were sanctified and united with God), and not every Christian without qualification (because they may not yet be sanctified and united with God), as well as the Saints or the Fathers or the Doctors of the Church (because they were sanctified and united with God).
The problem with the first Protestant view is that, without infallible interpreters of what the first sanctified people wrote, we hopeless sinners are no better off than we started. We have an infallible book, but can’t infallibly use it. Also, as you noted, how do we know it’s infallably inspired without being inspired ourselves?
The problem with the second Protestant view is that, if everyone is infallibly inspired as long as they claim the Holy Spirit is talking to them… Well, the problem is obvious. The Holy Spirit would have to be schizophrenic! You get Quakers, Mormons, and me, when I was in high school (Scary), with no way to correct them.
The problem with the Catholic/Orthodox view is similar. How do we know who is sanctified or not, without being sanctified ourselves? RC/EO don’t claim that “the Church” without qualification is infallible, but that the Church insofar as it is sanctified and united to Christ is infallible, because Christ with whom they are united is infallible by definition, since He is God. So there can be bad bishops and heretical hierarchs, but they eventually get canned.
The difference is this: I do not know for certain whether the Bible is inspired or that certain saints are sanctified *until I myself am sanctified.* Until then I am forced to trust the authority of others. Protestants also trust the authority of authors (how many can you ask, “Why is the Bible the Word of God?” and they’ll give you an answer other than what their pastor says?) but there is no in principle way to become the kind of person who can verify what authority says, (except by yourself becoming educated, smart, learning Greek and developing your own novel systematic theology!) So authority becomes a function of education and intellectual prowess.
In RC/EO authority is a function of spiritual education — that is, humility. The meek inherit the earth, and the holy and selfless guide the Church. Those who are spiritual instruct those of us who are carnal. We submit to their holiness, as far as we can dimly recognize it, partly because of their miraculous deeds, their words of power, their upstanding lives.
The question is not, “will you trust a person or a book?” but “which person will you trust?” And the options between persons (it seems to me) are a) smart people, b) holy people.
How do we know the “plain meaning” with certitude? Just plain common sense? Using our noodle? Assuming semetic metaphor and simile is accessible in translation?
We have posted about this at The Black Cordelias… Most notably with “Sola Scriptura“…
It isn’t that we who do NOT advocate Sola Scriptura are of the thinking that the Scriptures are failable or problematic. We are of the thinking that individual interpretations can be.
“Likewise, I see no reason why the list of books determined to be canonical or the doctrine of sola scriptura itself cannot be such items of knowledge, arrived at by sound arguments and the use of God-given reason.”
Determining which books do and do not belong in Scripture is not quite the same sort of question as which books are or are not written by Plato, or are or are not accurate descriptions of plants, or etc etc.
To act as if that were so is to go for CircularReason’s A choice: smart people. And so it goes in many Protestant seminaries. Ephesians, really by Paul or no? Etc. If, according to you, the Church in 100AD could argue about which books do or don’t belong and do so on the basis of reason, then why could the Church not do so again today, with different reasons, and thus arriving at a different Canon?
“The church did not arbitrarily pick which books it liked and which it didn’t. Good reasons were given for including books like Revelation and excluding Clement and Hermas, and in the end, the best arguments won the day.”
I don’t think that is how it happened. The books that were used liturgically won the day. B) Holy People.
In all your post, oddly, seems to support the prior-to-Scripture authority of the Church. You talk about the Church choosing, deciding. That’s precisely what many of SS’s opponents put forward–and wrongly I think, because that is not in fact the Catholic or Orthodox understanding of the development of the Canon (i.e. some kind of up-down vote on the books)
Ben, thanks for the comment.
You said: “Determining which books do and do not belong in Scripture is not quite the same sort of question as which books are or are not written by Plato…”
It’s a more complicated question, to be sure, but it’s of the same kind. You can’t simply answer the question, “Was this epistle written by Paul?” Even if it was, you must also answer the question, “Should the writings of Paul be considered the authoritative Word of God?” I should also point out that deferring to the authority of the church doesn’t get you out of having to answer these questions, it simply means that your answer will be, “Yes, because the church infallibly said so.”
You said: “To act as if that were so is to go for CircularReason’s A choice: smart people. And so it goes in many Protestant seminaries.”
I suppose this is directed at CircularReason more than yourself, but I simply don’t understand this (false) dichotomy between “smart people” and “holy people.” The implication seems to be that the “holy people” of the Catholic or Orthodox church can’t or don’t rely on reason, at least in part, to support what they believe (making them irrational). And conversely, that the “smart” Protestants are not or cannot be holy, humble, Christ-seeking people of faith (lumping all of Protestantism into the liberal, higher-criticism camp). Both seem obviously false to me.
You said: “…then why could the Church not do so again today, with different reasons, and thus arriving at a different Canon?”
I’d be curious to know what those different reasons would be? I suppose we could dig up Paul’s third epistle to the Corinthians and the same arguments used in favor of the current canon would support its inclusion, but then we’d be using the same reasons as before.
Every time I hear this question I can’t help but read into it the implication that no amount of sound reasoning could ever lead us to make the right decisions about the canon, but then how did the church do it in the first place? There was no single ecumenical council where the church consciously exercised its powers of infallibility, and it doesn’t work to simply say that the canon developed “liturgically” in the sense that eventually everyone (subconsciously?) started using all and only the right books in worship. History just didn’t play out the way the Catholics and Orthodox want it to. Smaller councils were held (such as the Third Council of Carthage) in which various books were debated over, and eventually those smaller council decisions were accepted ecumenically.