Defence of Sola Scriptura: the need for a this truth to be known
Defence of Sola Scriptura: the need for a this truth to be known
Introduction
There seems to be an unrelenting attack on this most important pillar of the Protestant Reformation of late. Let us now turn our attention to one such argument which is put forth by both the Roman Catholic apologists and the orthodox apologists; in order that, we may critique it.
Sola scriptura: inadequacy and unbiblical nature.
The idea that the only rule of faith for the Christian and the church is the text of scripture is itself a-historical and unbiblical
There was no canon of scripture in the early church for many centuries—in fact, it was not until the 7th century when John of Damascus that we got the canon as we know it. So this is a problem.
The church has always operated on the foundation of there being two bodies of traditions. The first is the oral (or spoken) in nature; the second is the written (the scriptures).
It is easy to refute from scriptures themselves—there was no New Testament canon in existence; and when the text of 1 timothy 3:16 says “all scripture is god breathed” it refers to the Old Testament only.
Here, then, we have the basic form of the argument against this core pillar of the reformation which is, as I have noted, made by both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox. But the issue is that it rests not on the truth of what we hold to which is biblical as we will see in a moment; it is however based on a fallacy known as a straw-man. And that is, of course, where the opponent rather than dealing with the true position raises a false position and assumes it is yours; and then proceeds to rip it apart—and then proclaims victory. And as we shall find out this tactic is completely disingenuous
Now let us do as the scriptures tell us in Titus 1:9 “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also rebuke those in error.” And that is what I am seeking to do in this article.
ARGUMENT No 1
The idea that the only rule of faith for the Christian and the church is the text of scripture is itself a-historical and unbiblical.
Now we come to this first statement of this argument as to the reason why this pillar is false. And immediately we are hit with a misrepresentation of what Sola Scriptura is in these first few words: “the only rule of faith” – that is not our position even in the slightest. It is nothing more than straw-man. And I find it slightly concerning that it is a continuous thing; in that no matter how many times this is dealt with by correction, the opponents do not care for the sake of truth to drop bad and illogical arguments. Are we not meant to be people who bide by the truth? There is no need to misrepresent a position—even if you do not agree with it. Show where it is in error after you have correctly defined it.
Now the question that needs to be asked is this: what, then, is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? It is the position that for the believer individually; and the church as a whole—there is only one source of infallible truth that God has given. And that is because it is by its very nature divine in its origin. That is the position—and it is what must be critiqued by those who oppose it. And as of yet it has not been done.
Now how do we go about showing this is the true position that the Christian Faith must hold too. Well—there are two ways for this to be achieved. In the first place, we can look at particular passages which without a doubt make it a plain fact, an undeniable one at that. A number springs to mind: 1 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21 and Matthew 22: 29-31. All of these statements are important in establishing the truth of this position—we are dealing not with the extent of the writings; but the nature of them being “God breathed.” And, therefore, the function of them being authoritative flows directly from their nature.
With this in mind—we can turn to our second way: how does the Father’s speak of the Word of God? There only needs to be one citation; but I will give two: “Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves. The holy ghost himself spoke in scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased; or as much as we could receive. Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever he has not said, we dare not say.” (Cyril) and then there is this: “we make the scriptures the canon and rule of every dogma; we of necessity look upon that, and receive only that which may be made conformable to the intention of those writings.” (Gregory of Nyssa). The authority of scripture is vital truth flowing from the scripture’s nature as being God-breathed. And, therefore, it is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer.
This is what the opponent of this position must understand—and never misrepresent.
ARGUMENT No 2
There was no canon of scripture in the early church for many centuries—in fact, it was not until the 7th century when John of Damascus that we got the canon as we know it. So this is a problem.
Again this position does not deal with the extent of the canon. Therefore, it must be dropped as an argument against it. As we have carefully pointed out above—we are solely dealing with the nature and origin of the Holy Writings. But for the sake of this misplaced argument, let us point out something important.
There are two aspects of what we call the canon—and we must never pit them against one another. Or abandon one for the sake of the other. The first is what we can refer to as the ‘authorial intention’. And the second is the human recognition of the fact. What we are dealing with here is the raising of one aspect to the position whereby the other is neglected and deprecated. But the reality is far more important to understand. Canon is an artefact of revelation. In other words, the canon is only what it is because God revealed it to be what it is. To put it another way: God's action precedes and underlies man’s recognition. God’s word had to be revealed in order for man to come to the place of recognition as such.
Let me ask some questions for clarity:
Does the author or the audience have the right to say that their works are a part of the canon? Does the opponent have certainty of what books are a part of the Canon? Why should we trust that men in the past got it right from the opponent's position?
Let me be clear on this matter—I am not saying that we do not know which books belong in the canon—for we do. We can know based on internal and external evidence which establishes it beyond any doubt. But the opponent always raises the issue of the canon by asking “how do you know the book of Matthew should be in the canon?” and in doing this—they are opening themselves to more severe attacks on their own position because they do not have any basis for saying that one book is canon over another. It is all based on conjecture.
The question of whether a book is canon should rest on the following:
Are the books of the Old and New Testament consistent? Do they reveal the same characteristics about God; man and salvation? Is there a clear teaching regarding how one is to be saved from book to book?
The question of canon must never be mixed up with the question of inspiration. Rather canon only exists because of inspiration.
ARGUMENT no 3
The church has always operated on the foundation of there being two bodies of traditions. The first is the oral (or spoken) in nature; the second is the written (the scriptures).
Here, then, we come to the third argument—one based on extra-biblical tradition which is different and distinct from what is written in the bible. Now this is often paired with a reprimand for not adhering to this command because you do not uphold and such as this: “the scriptures tell us to stand firm on two kinds of tradition: one being oral and the other being written. Yet you protestants fail this direct biblical command.” But is this claim true? Do Protestants neglect such a clear command by not obeying one part? Or are we seeing another case of a fallacy being used in order to justify something that is completely and utterly false? Let us find out.
First, we are dealing with a clear case of a fallacy—it is known as switch and bait (or equivocation); that is where the opponent of a position takes one word; and assumes a wider range of application to its meaning. In this case, we are dealing with the term “tradition” this term biblically speaking has two meanings: (1) a teaching that is giving which by nature contradicts the established truth (Matt. 15:1-9; Col. 2:8-10) (2) a teaching that is given which by its nature is in harmony with the established truths. (1 Corinthians 15:1-3; 2 Thess. 2: 13-15). Now when it comes to this subject which is raised by the opponents of the Protestant Faith—most of what is put forth falls under the first mentioned category such as the dogmas about Mary in Catholicism. In other words, there is no biblical evidence; and far worse, there is no historical evidence for them—they’re completely foreign to the Faith of the saints of the last 2000 years.
Second, now if this is the case—and it is. Then what about the so-called biblical proofs offered for there being other traditions different and distinct from what is in the scriptures. There are mainly two such verses—not even full passages—the first is 1 Corinthians 11:2 and the other is 2 Thess. 2:15. What about these passages—do they support the edifice of these systems? Let us find out. First: 1 Corinthians 11:3. “.. maintain the traditions even as I deliver them to you.” This statement taken on its own is a very hard one to understand—and this is the issue with the opponents of the reformation—there is no concern for the wider context in order to give us a proper and balanced view. Therefore, let us consider the context so that we can find more biblical understanding
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I deliver them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:1-3)
So with this extra bit of context—we can begin to figure out what the “tradition” is concerning—can we not? Is it about Mary? Is it about the Saints? Is it about the Pope and the Papacy? How bout the mass and the communion? What of the bread becoming the literal body of Christ? I do not think these were even in the mind of the apostle—and neither should they be in our thinking as they are unbiblical and a-historical. But if this is the case—then what is the issue being addressed? Well—it is the biblical view of Marriage; and the roles that they undertake in the life of the church. This tradition that he delivered to them in oral form is about Marriage; and it is what would later form the basis of this whole context. I shall depart from this text.
Second: 2 Thess. 2:15 “so then, brother, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by spoken word or by our letter.” Now the real issue here is complete dismissal of both the context and the verse itself. Let us consult the context come to a more biblical conclusion—shall we?
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
Now to refrain from repeating the same number of questions as above—I just ask you to look at them. But I do ask: what does tradition mean in this context? The answer is something that “the apostle handed down” to the people he was communicating with in one to one correspondence. Let us note that this tradition is one in the same thing “ teaching on how God effectively saves sinners” as verse 13-14 make clear. There is nothing in the context that leads one to assume and assert something different—another clear example of wishful thinking. It is a clear presentation of the gospel message, that the apostle has in mind, being communicated in the given ways: spoken or written. But this leads to another problem for this attack: it does not imply that the believer has to hold to both the oral and the written at the same time; but that one must hold to the “traditions” by one of either two ways— and the church does. When the church stands firm on the written word it is standing firm to the traditions—no church today can stand firm on the oral communication because the apostles have long since gone to glory.
In light of these passages I would like to ask a simple question: Has a single word or statement of either the Lord or His Apostles that is not scripture ever been dogmatically defined as being infallible?
ARGUMENT no 4
It is easy to refute from scriptures themselves—there was no New Testament canon in existence; and when the text of 1 Timothy 3:16 says “all scripture is god breathed” it refers to the Old Testament only.
Now we come to the final part of this argument that I will be addressing—and it is the argument from certainty (or in this case: lack of); but it rests on a misrepresentation of the Protestant position. And we have two basic points being put together in this statement: on one hand, we have the issue of the canon—how do we know which books belong? But it is only a partial understanding of the matter. And on the other hand, we have a discussion of the nature of the very scriptures—where they come from? This is, of course, a very important point. And they do indeed cross over—but I want to address them both as two distinctive realities.
First, the issue of the Canon—and how we know which books belong? Well—to answer that question we must understand that there are two different points being established. In the first place, there is what can be classed as the “ontological canon” that is the fact that when God chose to reveal His will to mankind, what the Spirit had particular men write became part of His canon. Whether it was one book or multiple books and letters; they were and are by His very stamp of approval His books. In the second place, we have what can be classed as the “economical Canon '' this is how the Christin community down the centuries has come to the position of recognising from certain criteria which books should be accepted. For example, the church had to debate over the book of Revelation for a long period of time. And we must be thankful.
Now the thing to recognise in this issue is this. The first aspect of necessity forms the basis of the second aspect; and without it—we would have no clue what the later is. Why is this important? For this simple reason when a Catholic, for example, asks the oft repeated question: how do you know that Matthew is meant to be in the Canon? We have a good answer to this.
When was the canon officially recognised as canon by the Catholic church?
And before that point in time—how would the faithful Catholic know which books were Canon when even the Pope did not know?
But even more to the point, if a book is determined to be by the Catholic church, what makes you have certainty that they got it right when that judgement is not infallible?
So now do we see the problem.
Second, a discussion of 2 Timothy 3:16— and what it teaches.. The text tells us that “all scriptures are inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 timothy 3:16-17) This is a glorious text about several matters concerning the scriptures: (1) their origin; (2) their extent; and (3) their purpose. Let us now consider these things.
The term translated “inspired” should be understood as God breathed. That is certainly what the apostle had in mind. The meaning reflects more accurately the origin of scriptures—that being they came directly from God Himself; and therefore, they have the same authority as God because they convey His will and purpose. The fact is the message they convey is infallible.
The passage starts off with “all scriptures' ' refers to extent; or to put it another way: the contents. Both the Old Testament because it had been completed—and Christ recognised it. But also to the New Testament, for at this point, most of it had been written down as both Peter and Paul recognised (2 Peter 3 15-16; 1 Timothy 5: 19). It is only those which are consistent with the Old.
The purpose is two-fold: (1) provide us with truth which will edify the community of Saints (vs. 16d; 17) (2) to rebuke and correct error wherever it raises its ugly head (vs.16 b-c).
The argument against this passage being used for Sola Scriptura is infinitesimally weak- it does not hold by force.