Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[Safia]

I'd like to know how/where Protestants justify sola scriptura -- the position that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand it -- within the "proof" I've outlined below (drawn from Robert A. Sungenis). I'm genuinely curious. It's self-evident to me, especially for someone who returned to the Catholic faith only after deep agnosticism and in-depth research.

#

Problems of Coherence

Sola scriptura is incoherent because it it is (1) unbiblical, and (2) logically inconsistent.

(1) It is unbiblical.

-- (a) The Bible nowhere teaches or assumes sola scriptura.

We can agree that Jesus, Paul, and others claim that Scripture has divine authority, and Jesus appeals to its authority. But nowhere does Jesus assume that what is written is the only source of continuing divine authority, and nowhere is it stated that "God's will throughout history has been to commit wholly to writing all revelation and instruction that He intended as an ongoing authority for His people and their salvation." All of the texts typically referenced (i.e., 2 Tim 3:16, Acts 17:10-12, etc.) "simply do not say this nor can they be made to imply this, without assuming in advance what is proper to one's exegetical conclusions."

-- (b) The Bible assumes a larger context of delegated authority.

"God is never seen conferring authority on Scripture in an historical and social vacuum. Scripture is always found, rather, within a community in which God has conferred authority upon lawfully ordained human leaders. These leaders are always either (1) appointed by God Himself, and publicly confirmed in their appointment by a miraculous ministry, or (2) appointed in legitimate and lawful succession by authorities having their ultimate origin in the first category ... Jesus and the apostles are seen demanding obedience not only to the written Word of God, but to the living decisions of the Church (Mt 18:12-20; cf. Acts 15, 16:4)."

-- (c) The Bible assumes extrabiblical traditions.

"... the position of sola scriptura is self-defeating, because it rests on a presupposition that cannot be proved from Scripture (let alone from history) -- namely, that the whole content of God's revealed will for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed "wholly to writing," so that no unwritten residue of divinely inspired instruction survived from the oral teachings of Jesus and His apostles that remained binding on God's people after the New Testament (NT) was written ... But where does Scripture say this? How could one claim to know this? ...

"First, if all bindingly authoritative oral instruction ceased with the death of the last apostle and if the early churches did not have copies of all the New Testament books until well after that time, who spoke for the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the interim?

"Second, how can only plausibly imagine the transition from the partially oral framework of authoritative instruction (OT + teachings of Jesus and apostles) to a wholly written framework (OT + NT) required by this hypothesis?

"The writings of the early Church are filled with extrabiblical sayings of Jesus, practices of the Christian community, liturgical and Eucharistic formulas, and so forth, which presuppose the divine origin and authority of these things."

-- (d) The Bible assumes the liturgical context of the worshipping community.

"The Bible is by design a text intended to be publicly read and heard. We lose something when all we do is read it on our own. This privatized and bookish view is anachronistic and contrary to both the primary intended use of the Biblical texts and to the historical milieu of Scripture itself."

(2) It is logically inconsistent.

-- (a) It is self-referentially inconsistent.

"First ... 'it is self-contradictory, for it says we should believe only Scripture, but Scripture never says this! If we believe only what Scripture teaches, we will not believe sola scriptura ...'

"Second, it assumes that the 'essential' teachings of Scripture are sufficiently clear to be understood by anyone, but is not itself sufficiently clear to be considered a scriptural teaching by all.

"Third, it claims that the Bible is the ultimate authority, but in fact subordinates the Bible to the extrabiblical (traditions of) interpretation of this or that individual, or group, about what the Bible says. This means, practically speaking, that sola scriptura leads to hermeneutical subjectivism.

"Fourth, sola scriptura is self-referentially inconsistent because the Bible contains no inspired index of its own contents and cannot even be identified as a divine revelation except on extrabiblical grounds of tradition."

-- (b) It violates the principle of sufficient reason.

"... it violates the principles of causality: that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the apostles) wrote Scripture; and the successors of the apostles, i.e., the bishops of the Church, decided on the cannon, the list of books to be declared scriptural and infallible. If Scripture is infallible, then its cause, the Church, must also be infallible."

[ESMDHokie77]

Basically, they stand on 2 Tim 3:16, and a few other verses that they cherry-pick out of context for their use to suit their own personal beliefs... But I mustn't generalize; after all, in Protestantism there are as many popes as there are noses, and they could all teach something different if they wanted to, so long as they find it/base it on/think it's implied in the Bible.

[Safia]

Originally Posted by ESMDHokie77

Basically, they stand on 2 Tim 3:16, and a few other verses that they cherry-pick out of context for their use to suit their own personal beliefs... But I mustn't generalize; after all, in Protestantism there are as many popes as there are noses, and they could all teach something different if they wanted to, so long as they find it/base it on/think it's implied in the Bible.

Yes, but I'm wondering why so, if it's true that 2 Tim 3:16 can only be made to imply sola scriptura when assuming in advance what is proper to one's exegetical conclusions. I'd like to hear the logic. If such logic exists?

[Mirza19]

Originally Posted by Safia

Yes, but I'm wondering why so, if it's true that 2 Tim 3:16 can only be made to imply sola scriptura when assuming in advance what is proper to one's exegetical conclusions. I'd like to hear the logic. If such logic exists?

Short Answer: it's a combination of generalizing your position, looking backwards into history, and relying on emotional reaction as logical verification of "truth."

Long Answer:

God exists -> God revealed the Bible -> therefore it is holy and authoritative for teaching.

Man exists -> Man is innately sinful and proud -> therefore, man is not a source of authority

Thus, we must rely on the Bible over Man.

They then assert that "Holy Tradition" is the work of man, looking at specific examples without looking at their historical background.

The word "Pope" isn't in the Bible, therefore it must be un-Biblical. And while there is a route of authority via Jesus -> Peter ->Disiples ->other disciples via "laying on" of hands, this is interpreted as simply an initiation ritual, and not a chain of spiritually authoritative succession. "On this rock" Christ built his Church, but Peter, as a man, was fallible outside of what was listed in the Bible.

Without this, there's no basis for tradition, so what's left is to take the Bible, the sole source of authority, on it's own. Essentially, they stand at this point in time, hand-in-hand with these views, and look backward, rather than allowing the original point in history to craft their views.

I fully agree that it's inconsistent and illogical, and that it generalizes the nature of Holy Tradition and Apostolic succession to fit into its argumentative scheme. However, when you've been practically bred into the Protestant tradition, it's hard to see beyond that - especially when some of the die-hards assert that following Holy Tradition in itself is tantamount to relinquishing your Christian faith.

There's also the "evidence" against Catholicism/Orthodoxy -->

If you are truly Christian, you'll know God (euphemism for emotional experience) -> we feel cold and empty in Traditionalist churches -> we feel the "presence" of God (i.e., I get a happy, warm, and fuzzy feeling) in these non-Traditionalist churches.

I have a lot of friends that left the Catholic Church or are familiar with its services, who feel it is "Godless" because they don't get the same euphoria from the Divine Liturgy as they do from singing Protestant Praise songs to a band in a church.

Having said all of these, those who support Sola Scriptura will then dive into the text and look for verses that support these views. That's where the "all Scripture is profitable for teaching" is used. Once I actually used that against someone in a friendly discussion, and they were stumped. They respected my views, but never really talked religion with me again.

[Mirza19]

Also, I'm still waiting on my Systematic Theology by Wayne Gruder to arrive, but I assume it'll have a much better, and much less biased, explanation.

[Tridentinum]

Originally Posted by Mirza19

Short Answer: it's a combination of generalizing your position, looking backwards into history, and relying on emotional reaction as logical verification of "truth."

Long Answer:

God exists -> God revealed the Bible -> therefore it is holy and authoritative for teaching.

Man exists -> Man is innately sinful and proud -> therefore, man is not a source of authority

Let me just correct that for you:

God exists -> God created the Church -> The Church created the Bible with the guidance of God -> therefore it is holy and useful for teaching by the Church because:

Man exists -> Man is innately sinful and proud -> therefore, man is not a source of authority for interpretation.

[couponfit]

Originally Posted by Mirza19

Short Answer: it's a combination of generalizing your position, looking backwards into history, and relying on emotional reaction as logical verification of "truth."

Long Answer:

God exists -> God revealed the Bible -> therefore it is holy and authoritative for teaching.

Man exists -> Man is innately sinful and proud -> therefore, man is not a source of authority

Thus, we must rely on the Bible over Man.

They then assert that "Holy Tradition" is the work of man, looking at specific examples without looking at their historical background.

The word "Pope" isn't in the Bible, therefore it must be un-Biblical. And while there is a route of authority via Jesus -> Peter ->Disiples ->other disciples via "laying on" of hands, this is interpreted as simply an initiation ritual, and not a chain of spiritually authoritative succession. "On this rock" Christ built his Church, but Peter, as a man, was fallible outside of what was listed in the Bible.

Without this, there's no basis for tradition, so what's left is to take the Bible, the sole source of authority, on it's own. Essentially, they stand at this point in time, hand-in-hand with these views, and look backward, rather than allowing the original point in history to craft their views.

I fully agree that it's inconsistent and illogical, and that it generalizes the nature of Holy Tradition and Apostolic succession to fit into its argumentative scheme. However, when you've been practically bred into the Protestant tradition, it's hard to see beyond that - especially when some of the die-hards assert that following Holy Tradition in itself is tantamount to relinquishing your Christian faith.

There's also the "evidence" against Catholicism/Orthodoxy -->

If you are truly Christian, you'll know God (euphemism for emotional experience) -> we feel cold and empty in Traditionalist churches -> we feel the "presence" of God (i.e., I get a happy, warm, and fuzzy feeling) in these non-Traditionalist churches.

I have a lot of friends that left the Catholic Church or are familiar with its services, who feel it is "Godless" because they don't get the same euphoria from the Divine Liturgy as they do from singing Protestant Praise songs to a band in a church.

Having said all of these, those who support Sola Scriptura will then dive into the text and look for verses that support these views. That's where the "all Scripture is profitable for teaching" is used. Once I actually used that against someone in a friendly discussion, and they were stumped. They respected my views, but never really talked religion with me again.

Hi, I liked reading your comment. The last paragraph went over my head. Can you please rephrase it so I can better understand.

[15thClub]

Safia,

Nicely done. I enjoyed reading your post!

[JonNC]

=Safia;8778386]I'd like to know how/where Protestants justify sola scriptura -- the position that all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand it

Where did you find your definition of sola scriptura?

(1) It is unbiblical.

-- (a) The Bible nowhere teaches or assumes sola scriptura.

We can agree that Jesus, Paul, and others claim that Scripture has divine authority, and Jesus appeals to its authority. But nowhere does Jesus assume that what is written is the only source of continuing divine authority, and nowhere is it stated that "God's will throughout history has been to commit wholly to writing all revelation and instruction that He intended as an ongoing authority for His people and their salvation." All of the texts typically referenced (i.e., 2 Tim 3:16, Acts 17:10-12, etc.) "simply do not say this nor can they be made to imply this, without assuming in advance what is proper to one's exegetical conclusions."

That's fine. Lutherans, for example, are perfectly willing to accept that the early creeds, and councils, and even our own confessions, while not at the level of scripture, are important to the instruction of the faith. Your first two sentences state the Lutheran position; that scripture is the final norm, to which all teachers and teachings, and doctrines are held accountable.

-- (b) The Bible assumes a larger context of delegated authority.

"God is never seen conferring authority on Scripture in an historical and social vacuum. Scripture is always found, rather, within a community in which God has conferred authority upon lawfully ordained human leaders. These leaders are always either (1) appointed by God Himself, and publicly confirmed in their appointment by a miraculous ministry, or (2) appointed in legitimate and lawful succession by authorities having their ultimate origin in the first category ... Jesus and the apostles are seen demanding obedience not only to the written Word of God, but to the living decisions of the Church (Mt 18:12-20; cf. Acts 15, 16:4)."

Yes. the Church. From Augsburg: Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.

-- (c) The Bible assumes extrabiblical traditions.

"... the position of sola scriptura is self-defeating, because it rests on a presupposition that cannot be proved from Scripture (let alone from history) -- namely, that the whole content of God's revealed will for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed "wholly to writing," so that no unwritten residue of divinely inspired instruction survived from the oral teachings of Jesus and His apostles that remained binding on God's people after the New Testament (NT) was written ... But where does Scripture say this? How could one claim to know this? ...

That's not the intent of sola scriptura.

"First, if all bindingly authoritative oral instruction ceased with the death of the last apostle and if the early churches did not have copies of all the New Testament books until well after that time, who spoke for the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the interim?

"Second, how can only plausibly imagine the transition from the partially oral framework of authoritative instruction (OT + teachings of Jesus and apostles) to a wholly written framework (OT + NT) required by this hypothesis?

"The writings of the early Church are filled with extrabiblical sayings of Jesus, practices of the Christian community, liturgical and Eucharistic formulas, and so forth, which presuppose the divine origin and authority of these things."

And how does does this dispute sola scriptura?

-- (d) The Bible assumes the liturgical context of the worshipping community.

"The Bible is by design a text intended to be publicly read and heard. We lose something when all we do is read it on our own. This privatized and bookish view is anachronistic and contrary to both the primary intended use of the Biblical texts and to the historical milieu of Scripture itself."

And how does this relate to sola scriptura?

-- (a) It is self-referentially inconsistent.

"First ... 'it is self-contradictory, for it says we should believe only Scripture, but Scripture never says this! If we believe only what Scripture teaches, we will not believe sola scriptura ...'

Sola scriptura doesn't say this.

"Second, it assumes that the 'essential' teachings of Scripture are sufficiently clear to be understood by anyone, but is not itself sufficiently clear to be considered a scriptural teaching by all.

I was never taught this either.

"Third, it claims that the Bible is the ultimate authority, but in fact subordinates the Bible to the extrabiblical (traditions of) interpretation of this or that individual, or group, about what the Bible says. This means, practically speaking, that sola scriptura leads to hermeneutical subjectivism.

No. Sola scriptura is apractice of hermeunetics of the Church, and no more "subjective" than the scripture/Tradition/Magisterium hermeunetc model. It is still subject to human beings interpreting.

"Fourth, sola scriptura is self-referentially inconsistent because the Bible contains no inspired index of its own contents and cannot even be identified as a divine revelation except on extrabiblical grounds of tradition."

Irrelevent to the intent of sola scriptura.

Jon

[JonNC]

Sola scriptura is best described in the Lutheran Confessions.

1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

Jon

[Newsy]

As I see it, the biggest roadblock to open conversation regarding sola scriptura is that there is not a definition. It's hard to discuss something that has many varied definitions. As soon as one poster puts out a definition, someone else refutes it.

I was brought up in a Presbyterian church, we never questioned sola scriptura or sola fide. These were "foundations" of our faith. When I read "Rome sweet home", I was confronted to prove these ideas. I was never able to defend these using "scripture only", this was early on my journey to Rome.

From my understanding, if scripture and Tradition never conflict, then there is no issue. Some reject Catholic Tradition, big "T", and refer to scripture. If they are in disagreement with the Church, then they are naturally reading scripture with a pretext. The Canon of the Bible was given to the Catholic Church by the Holy Spirit through Ecumenical Councils. If the Catholic Church was in conflict with scripture, then why would they include the troublesome passage?

The problem with sola scriptura is not what scripture says, but how it is interpreted. Most people I know, who stand by sola scriptura, use it to affirm their interpretation of scripture. It would seem that trouble comes when you separate written scripture and oral Tradition. As JonNC mentioned, some Lutherans reference the Early Councils in their teaching. Others, like the ELCA and the Presbyterian Church in the USA, are kind of blazing their own liberal path through things. Many teachings of these two organizations aren't easily proven using the Bible.

I look forward to hearing some genuine defense of sola scriptura.

[passer_by]

Originally Posted by JonNC

Sola scriptura is best described in the Lutheran Confessions.

1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php

Jon

I think the point made Jon is how did anyone come up with the Lutheran Confessions? Is it Biblical? As far as I know it isn't. Nowhere does it say in the Bible to believe or obey what is in the Lutheran Confessions because it is preserved from error.

In which case your answer would probably be its from outside the Bible. Then there is no reason to believe it true either. What makes you think that some group of people got it right in putting together the "Lutheran Confessions" and this is the rule of thumb one must follow?

Do you see the logical inconsistency?

The larger problem here is that there is no reason for anyone to go from belief in the Propositions God exists, Christ died and rose from the dead, or Christ is my personal Savior to believing in the Lutheran Confessions. It just comes out of nowhere.

When an average person converts to Protestantism, usually they never stop to think about that little bit. The ones who are already Protestant never feel the need to think about it either until they really start thinking about how to convince an Atheist or a non-Christian through reason to become a Protestant. At that point they realize there is a gap between the reasonably provable propositions like God exists, Jesus rose from the dead or even the personal experience of Christ as a personal savior and going to believe in the Lutheran Confessions, five Solas etc. This is the inherent flaw in Protestantism.

Catholicism escapes this error (or does not contain this error), simply because it asks the most logically intuitive question after finding out that Christ is the personal savior or the rationally provable propositions i.e. Who can tell me about the teachings of Christ? In the old days, it was the Apostles. The Apostles taught that their office continues and after them it was their successors that taught. So for someone today, it will be the Apostolic successors in the Catholic Church that instruct them on faith and morals as taught by Jesus Christ.

But the Protestants, without thinking rationally (Luther was very anti-reason), adopted an unreasonable position and if people actually questioned the whole process of going from believing "Christ as ones personal savior" to the five Solas or Lutheran Confessions, no rational person should really be Protestant. Unfortunately, even every rational person acts irrationally sometimes.

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8783247]I think the point made Jon is how did anyone come up with the Lutheran Confessions? Is it Biblical? As far as I know it isn't. Nowhere does it say in the Bible to believe or obey what is in the Lutheran Confessions because it is preserved from error.

Of course it is biblical. We believe that, like the early councils, it rightly reflects scripture. Are they equal to scripture? No. They are normed by scripture. The fallacy is the idea that sola scriptura teaches that everything but scripture is excluded. That's not the intention at all.

In which case your answer would probably be its from outside the Bible. Then there is no reason to believe it true either. What makes you think that some group of people got it right in putting together the "Lutheran Confessions" and this is the rule of thumb one must follow?

Do you see the logical inconsistency?

Not inconsistent at all, no moreso than councils. When we say that the first 7 councils rightly reflect the truth of the faith, or that the creeds do, is that inconsistent? Of course not.

The larger problem here is that there is no reason for anyone to go from belief in the Propositions God exists, Christ died and rose from the dead, or Christ is my personal Savior to believing in the Lutheran Confessions. It just comes out of nowhere.

Then so do the early councils and creeds. And neither of us believe that to be true.

When an average person converts to Protestantism, usually they never stop to think about that little bit. The ones who are already Protestant never feel the need to think about it either until they really start thinking about how to convince an Atheist or a non-Christian through reason to become a Protestant. At that point they realize there is a gap between the reasonably provable propositions like God exists, Jesus rose from the dead or even the personal experience of Christ as a personal savior and going to believe in the Lutheran Confessions, five Solas etc. This is the inherent flaw in Protestantism.

Well, Lutherans generally talk about 4 solas, but sola scriptura is certainlyin a different category since it is a practice, not a doctrine. But your general point can also be made of the early councils and creeds.

Catholicism escapes this error (or does not contain this error), simply because it asks the most logically intuitive question after finding out that Christ is the personal savior or the rationally provable propositions i.e. Who can tell me about the teachings of Christ? In the old days, it was the Apostles. The Apostles taught that their office continues and after them it was their successors that taught. So for someone today, it will be the Apostolic successors in the Catholic Church that instruct them on faith and morals as taught by Jesus Christ.

Which successors? Yours or Orthodoxy's? See? There's the point. Successors don't even agree on which are authoritative councls? Whom should we believe? I really do believe that this is the seed of sola scriptura.

But the Protestants, without thinking rationally (Luther was very anti-reason), adopted an unreasonable position and if people actually questioned the whole process of going from believing "Christ as ones personal savior" to the five Solas or Lutheran Confessions, no rational person should really be Protestant. Unfortunately, even every rational person acts irrationally sometimes.

You will have to show me where accepting the confessions is any more "irrational" than accepting the Apostle's Creed. Written by men.


Jon

[Safia]

Originally Posted by JonNC

...

I covered pretty much every response you've listed above here (bottom) and here.

Also, I think you've answered your own question, in terms of the "early councils and apostles." They were early. They lived in the times. They understood the mission Jesus had given them. That line of succession is still unbroken -- until Luther, entirely human, and entirely subjective, without the history of dogma and doctrine, and under the supposed guidance of the Holy Spirit, came about and decided to change things.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Safia

I covered pretty much every response you've listed above here (bottom) and here.

Also, I think you've answered your own question, in terms of the "early councils and apostles." They were early. They lived in the times. They understood the mission Jesus had given them. That line of succession is still unbroken -- until Luther, entirely human, and entirely subjective, without the history of dogma and doctrine, and under the supposed guidance of the Holy Spirit, came about and decided to change things.

and that's why we accept their teaching. I would contend that Rome began changing things long before Luther. If you want to go back to the early councils, I'm right there with you.
And the line is broken, has been, at least since 1054. Whom do we believe?

Jon