Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?

Not really, there are no passages teaching that doctrine. In fact, scripture gives us several examples of infallible oral teachings, including the Prophets, Christ’s earthly ministry, and even the Apostles. But sola scriptura is about the post-apostolic age! Well there are yet future examples as well, such as the two witnesses in Revelations and Christ Himself when He returns.

Now don’t get me wrong, the bible declares itself to be authoritative and sufficient for salvation. The bible says “Scriptura”; it’s the “sola” part that it doesn’t say.

So why then, do I believe in the Sola of Sola-Scripture? For the same reasons Luther gave at the Diet of Worms: "Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason "I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe." Popes and councils have contradicted themselves and scriptures, so they cannot have the same authority as scripture, let alone the authority to interpret scripture, which at a practical level is a greater authority than scripture.

This is of course in opposition to Roman Catholicism, but it also is in opposition to presuppostional apologetics, which presupposes sola scriptura as one of its most fundamental axioms, rather than accepting it based on evidence.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"...but it also is in opposition to presuppostional apologetics, which presupposes sola scriptura as one of its most fundamental axioms, rather than accepting it based on evidence."

Even granting that presuppositional apologetics axiomatically accepts sola scriptura as you have described you still have not argued anything in opposition to presuppositional apologetics. You argued instead that sola scriptura is not biblical, but then why cannot the presuppositionalist agree and accept both the bible and sola scriptura?

However, it is not clear that you have properly represented either sola scriptura or the evidentiary position of presuppositional apologetics. That sola scriptura is not explicitly stated in terms of the words themselves in the bible is no argument against the doctrine which can in fact be proven from passages of the bible. Additionally sola scriptura is not solo scriptura. Finally, there are many things which are both presupposed and evidenced. The presuppositionalist would presuppose sola scriptura only insofar as it is a necessary part of the Christian worldview (which it is) and only upon the basis of the evidence of the bible. It is to such evidence you have attempted to appeal for your alleged objection, so I do not really see what you are getting at here or that you were successful.
October 21, 2010 at 8:23 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Even granting that presuppositional apologetics axiomatically accepts sola scriptura as you have described you still have not argued anything in opposition to presuppositional apologetics. You argued instead that sola scriptura is not biblical, but then why cannot the presuppositionalist agree and accept both the bible and sola scriptura?

The argument is that the “sola” aspect of sola scriptura is based on reason and evidence, rather than a presupposition. If you did presuppose “sola” without scriptural basis, I would imagine that Roman Catholics would find that abusive (i.e. that you presuppose that their doctrines are wrong without scriptural support and before considering the evidence.)

That sola scriptura is not explicitly stated in terms of the words themselves in the bible is no argument against the doctrine which can in fact be proven from passages of the bible.

That was not my argument. I argued based on infallible oral teachings; some of them yet future. I also cited Luther’s reasons for accepting sola scriptura, and they were reason and experience, not scripture.

Finally, there are many things which are both presupposed and evidenced.

Presuppositionalist do say this. Sometimes they sound like they are using circular reasoning; but other times it sounds like the presupposition is primary and prior to evaluating the evidence and the evidences only gives an imperfect confirmation of the presupposition.

The presuppositionalist would presuppose sola scriptura only insofar as it is a necessary part of the Christian worldview (which it is) and only upon the basis of the evidence of the bible.

But the sola aspect is not in the bible; that’s the point.

Further it’s somewhat problematic to speak of the evidence of the bible, if the truth of the bible is presupposed. This is a more fundamental problem with presuppositionalism. How do you know what the bible says, or even that there is a bible without reliance on reason and your senses?

God be with you,
Dan
October 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more