Response to Dave Armstrong on Sola Scriptura

Dave Armstrong provided some arguments against sola scriptura that I thought I would address. Initially he provided some definitions of sola scriptura, which I more or less agreed with. Here's his first issue regarding "victory conditions" in the sola scriptura debate.

The Catholic needs to go further than that and establish, based on unassailable biblical evidence, examples of tradition or Church proclamations that were binding and obligatory upon all who heard and received them. Whether these were infallible is another more complex question, but a binding decree is already either expressly contrary to sola scriptura, or, at the very least, a thing that casts considerable doubt on the formal principle.

I don't think what you suggest would disprove sola scriptura. Unquestionably, before the bible, there were oral teachings which were binding. Of course anything Christ said was binding. Before Moses, God taught His people in means other than writing. Further, even at the time of the Apostles, God spoke through visions and prophets. The Apostles themselves were filled with the Spirit at times when they preached. Take the sermons of Peter or Paul recorded in Acts. It's a bit of a catch 22. If they made mistakes during their sermons, did Luke record the errors? If not, Luke didn't infallibly record what they said. If so, we can't trust the sermons recorded in Acts. The solution is of course that the preachers, filled with the Spirit, didn't err. But this was of course oral. The real question is what to do now that the Apostles have reposed; we no longer have visions and prophets; but we have the scriptures.

Thus, one of my favorite counter-arguments is to point out that the Apostle Paul and his companion Silas made their way “through the cities” and “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). This council at Jerusalem was described in the previous chapter as having reached its decisions by the direct aid or guidance of the Holy Spirit (15:28).

Similar to the above, I don't think the council of Jerusalem was fallible (due to the Holy Spirit, not the Apostles themselves). So what has changed? Why don't I accept post-apostolic councils as infallible. For one, we now have the bible; so the bible should be the infallible guide of all councils. But for another, post-apostolic councils, popes and the church have erred. One pope taught the Arian heresy (and a subsequent pope condemned him for it). The church flip-flopped on the issue of the Assumption of Mary (at times teaching it, at other times condemning it). One pope published his own personal translation of the bible, which was filled with errors. The next pope attempted to gather them all up and destroy them, because he knew they were wrong. Galileo was both hero and heretic. At one point there were three people claiming to be the pope. In short, because the popes and councils have contradicted themselves and scripture, they clearly are not infallible. But scripture has never erred.

3. Another relevant question with regard to sola scriptura is the history of how the canon of the New Testament was determined. It was, of course, as a result of the authority of the Catholic Church, since prior to the proclamations in the late 4th century, there were plenty of disagreements among eminent Church fathers about individual books (while there was substantial consensus in the main, as well).

Scripture is God's word, and His children recognize His voice. The books declare themselves to be God's word. For more, see here.

Most Protestant defenders of Scripture Alone contend that it is taught in the Bible. I contend that their alleged prooftexts are invariably logically circular, flimsy and easily shot down (and I hope to demonstrate that in this book). Other Protestants argue that it is true and a solid principle, without having to be expressly taught in the Bible; that it isn’t logically necessary for that to be the case in order to adhere to sola Scriptura.

I fall into the latter category. The scripture declares itself to be authoritative and that its revelation is sufficient for salvation, but scripture does not denounce all other authorities. But scripture is "sola" because it's the last man standing, given the errors of popes and councils.

The most obvious question in this regard to be resolved by the Protestant is to explain how sola scriptura can continue to “hold water” despite the numerous inter-Protestant disagreements. Scripture is, we are told, clear enough in its main outlines to be understood by the layman without necessary (let alone binding) help from any church body or ecclesiastical communion.

Just as what sinners did with Christ should not be held against Christ, neither should what sinners do with scripture be held against scripture. Still, most of the divisions are not over essentials of the faith; so we remain united in a more important sense. And by the way, the Catholic church isn't the only one claiming to be the one true church with an unbroken chain to the Apostles. I understand the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Armenian Church and the Coptic church make that claim as well.

Protestants, in reaction to these irresolvable conundrums, have come up with the notion of “essential” vs. “secondary” doctrines, which entails (I shall argue in this book) yet another unbiblical distinction.

Scripture states that some of its teachings are more important than others. Thus some commands are called "the more important matters of the law", while others are called "the least of these commandments". (Matthew 5:19; 23:23) So also, the Gospel has more glory and weight than the Law. (2 Corinthians 3:9; Hebrews 2:1-3; 10:26-29) It's the Gospel that's essential for salvation, albeit the other aspects are important.