Sola scriptura could mean different things. Here is one reading:
(show)
As Protestants we maintain that the Scripture alone is our authority. Our Roman opponents maintain that the Scripture by itself is insufficient as the authority of the people of God, and that tradition and the teaching authority of the church must be added to the Scripture. [. . .]
The Protestant position . . . is 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.
On the above reading, sola scriptura is the doctrine that what is essential for salvation can be discerned by the ordinary believer without the help of tradition, theologians, or any church's teaching authority. There is no need for any person or institution to mediate the word of God to the believer.
This needn't be taken to imply that traditions, theology, and institutions are not sometimes useful to the believer. They may or may not be; the Protestant point is that they are not necessary. The Roman position, on the other hand, is that they are necessary.
One problem for the Protestant position concerns the identity of scripture. Which writings are canonical? Which writings constitute scripture and which do not? Is there a Biblical text that lists the canonical writings? And if there were such a text, would it be canonical? Even if it listed itself, one could reasonably doubt that it was canonical.
The point is that any appeal to scripture alone presupposes an understanding of which writings make up scripture. But this understanding will not come easy to the ordinary believer. He or she needs guidance of the sort provided by the theologian. The theologian is an applied philosopher: he applies philosophy to the data of revelation. So philosophy is needed. Philosophy rests on unaided human reason. So faith is not enough; reason also is necessary to check and balance the excesses of faith.
But there is a second problem. Even if we know which writings are canonical, the proposition that such writings are the sole authority as regards matters of salvation is not a proposition to be found in scripture! Or if it is, please let me know where it is to be found. So sola scriptura is a piece of theology, a piece of applied philosophy.
So the question arises whether sola scriptura does not in the end refute itself. If scripture alone is the sole authority for matters pertaining to salvation, and sola scriptura is a proposition pertaining to salvation (which it is), then scripture alone cannot be the sole authority since there is nothing in scripture to justify sola scriptura.
Scripture is neutral with respect to this theological principle, the acceptance or rejection of which must be debated at the level of theology -- which amounts to saying that scripture alone does not suffice.
So far, Protestants 0, Romans 1.
(hide)
Related Posts (on one page):
- Further Thoughts on Sola Scriptura
- Some Thoughts on Sola Scriptura
- Catholicism and Double Mediation
- Extra Ecclesiam Salus Non Est
Perhaps the point is more to look at the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law. As I understand it the point of sola scriptura is that the immutability of Scripture provides a bulwark against the inevitable corruption that social institutions such as the Church are subject to. As John Wesley put it, "The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church."
Also, the reliance on Scripture as primary is sort of a "system-level" feature of Lutheranism, and seems to me a part of the act of faith involved in choosing to be a Lutheran in the first place, rather than a derived part of the doctrine. Our recent musings on set theory might be relevant here!
Clearly, sola scriptura arose as part of a reaction to the very real corruption of the Roman church, e.g., the sale of indulgences. Hence the call for a return to scriptures. My problem is with the sola part. That's why I referred to the doctrine as a "Lutheran exaggeration."
Your second point is very interesting, but it has the consequence that sola scriptura cannot be scripturally justified. It is a principle one brings to scripture rather than takes from it.
so the sola scriptura doctrine concerns people who believe the Bible is true. It says such Bible-believers can apprehend what is necessary for salvation.
I was thinking about a related question a while ago. Namely, how can one get to believe in the Bible? Do the Protestants believe that an unaided not-as-yet-believer decide that the Bible is true and is the Revelation? If so, how? Note that what the Bible says about itself is irrelevant here, as are variations in the canon.
If I understand correctly, the Catholic would answer that such unbeliever can't be converted by reading the Bible alone. He would argue that he himself believes in the Bible because he trusts the Church, because (equivalently) he believes there is a tradition dating back from the Church Fathers passed reliably generation into generation. Is that right?
As for the doctrine of sola scriptura, I have long doubted the possibility of this doctrine not only because of the reasons Dr. Vallicella raised but also because each and every individual reads the Bible through the lens of his/her tradition. The 2004 Windsor Report released by the Anglican Communion in order to settle several problems arising in the Episcopal Church, spent a considerable amount of time on biblical interpretation. I believe paragraph 59 of that report serves this discussion very well: “As this task proceeds, questions of interpretation are rightly raised, not as an attempt to avoid or relativise scripture and its authority, but as a way of ensuring that it really is scripture that is being heard, not simply the echo of our own voices (though our own responsive hearing is necessary) or the memory of earlier Christian interpretations (thought we must always take them into account: ‘tradition’ consists primarily of the recollection of what the scripture-reading Church has said)."
Maybe instead of sola scriptura the doctrine should have been: Scripture alone with Reason and Tradition as a guide.
Your arguments against sola scriptura seem to miss the mark. Suppose we grant Godfrey's characterization of the doctrine, making it the claim 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." You criticize this claim on the grounds that neither (i) the canonicity of the scriptures nor (ii) sola scriptura itself are established clearly in the Bible. But this undermines sola scriptura only if (i) and (ii) are among the things that must be believed in order to be saved, or for "faith and life." They aren't. One need not believe in the accuracy of the canon or in sola scriptura in order to be saved. (One certainly need not believe in the accuracy of the New Testament canon, for people supposedly had saving faiths before that canon even formed, or before the documents in that canon were ever composed.) Nor, to be clear, are belief in (i) and (ii) required for faith or life. For faith, I suppose, all one need have is belief in certain doctrines taught in the New Testament. But for that, one needn't even believe that the NT documents are inspired. One might believe, for example, that they are merely largely accurate historical records of what Jesus and the apostles said and did.
The refutation of a venerable doctrine such as sola scriptura isn't so easy. As it stands, a correction to the score is in order.
I gave up worrying about this kind of thing a long time ago. Just look at the disagreements among Biblical scholars. I know I will never be able to figure it out. From my perspective as an engineer, the New Testament reads like a user's manual. But what I want is the maintenance manual.
What difference would it have made had Luther known of the Gospel of Thomas? He already had doubts about some of the works in the traditional canon. (Doubts, to say the least: see here.) Given the Gospel of Thomas's dubious credentials, I doubt he would have hesitated to reject it too. It certainly wouldn't have moved him to think differently of sola scriptura.
How does the (putative) fact that "each and every individual reads the Bible through the lens of his/her tradition" cast doubt on sola scriptura?
As for the necessity of the idea of <i>Sola Scriptora </i>I think we can all understand. The most viewable of these can be recalled in debates that Charles Zwingli held with the Catholic church in a small town in Germany, in which each person (Zwingli and a Catholic representative) had equal footing, and an audience to judge. Time and time again many of the Catholic arguments failed in light of the text of the Bible.
Ex. Indulgences
I suppose for <i>Sola Scriptora </i>to work correctly one would never open the Bible or read it, because in fact reading it would be interpreting it through some lens or the other. Indeed it seems the intention of <i>Sola Scriptora </i>was more naive than it was correct, but offers an indispensable amount of good and bad, that was necessary to bring reform to Christianity.
But I understand your point that it doesn't matter what we call scripture. It's a matter of accepting certain teachings that happen to be found in certain scriptures. This is a reasonable position, but I think sola scriptura is then a somewhat superfluous notion.
Your question was a very good one. My point is that sola scriptura was understood as the ability for one to transcend traditional interpretations by allowing scripture to stand alone as the only source for authority in the Church. To oppose what has already been proposed, the argument that sola scriptura presents is not that the Bible should be the "final word" but that it is the only source of authority (correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure this is the traditional understanding of the doctrine). It is, however, my view that scripture and tradition share a "symbiotic" relationship which one can not escape. I do believe that one can step back from his/her "lens" in order to examine a theological doctrine that was previously held, but the indivdiual will still be operating within a traditional framework while doing so.
On my understanding, sola scriptura affirms not that the Bible is the only authority, as you suggest, but that it's the only infallible authority. Thus it's consistent with sola scriptura, as I understand it, to recognize that certain people are historical, theological, or biblical authorities; they just can't be recognized as infallible. The proponent of sola scriptura can also recognize the value of tradition, and can consistently take the views of, say, the Early Church Fathers, as evidence for certain interpretations of biblical passages. He just won't take those views as infallible.
It has been asserted a couple of times on this thread that sola scriptura is threatened by the (putative) fact that people interpret the Bible through certain "lenses". No doubt there are such lenses, but this objection exaggerates the extent to which these lenses condition (for lack of a better word) our interpretations of texts. Many parts of the Bible are certainly unclear and open to multiple interpretations, but the main themes are quite plain and come through loud and clear no matter what lens a person might happen to be viewing it through. No competent reader needs tradition or a teaching magisterium to discern these themes in the text (anymore than you need such sources in order to grasp the basic claims found in a newspaper, say, or this post). But that's basically all that sola scriptura requires, at least as characterized by Godfrey above; his claim was 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."
I said that sola scriptura is a proposition pertaining to salvation, and Spur seems to be denying this. Well, what is the negation of sola scriptura? It is the proposition that scripture alone is not sufficient for salvation; more is needed, namely the church and its teaching authority. Thus the negation of sola scriptura entails "Extra ecclesiam salus non est." Now the latter definitely pertains to salvation: it tells us under what conditions salvation is to be had.
I infer that sola scriptura also pertains to salvation since it tells us that a church is not needed for salvation.
The issue is this: what do I need to be saved? Do I need the church, its sacraments, and its priests? Sola scriptura says that I don't need the foregoing.
My point was that scripture cannot be the sole authority on matters pertaining to salvation since scripture says nothing about whether or not it is the sole authority on matters pertaining to salvation. Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that what I said is correct.
I think you have rightly captured the essence of this doctrine.
All,
For an interesting (and seemingly informed) debate on this subject, visit this site.
Mr. Jones, who defends the doctrine, makes an interesting case that the Bible advocates sola scriptura by affirming the authority of oral traditions and their inscription based on the history of revelation.
-Chris
I am thoroughly enjoying the comments but I wish to direct attention to your definition and an apparent inconsistency that needs some clarification. Even if one were to hold to the theory of sola scriptura this does not necessarily entail that he needs hold to a belief in the infallibility of the Bible. The notion that the writers of the Bible were somehow celestial word-processors and produced an infallible Bible was an invention of the 19th century and was never mentioned by any of the Reformers. Both Calvin and Luther would have asserted that the Bible was inspired, but inspiration does not necessarily lead to a doctrine of infallibility. Further, if sola scriptura is understood as resting on the doctrine of infallibility then the theory, itself, would be have a portion of its foundation on a doctrine that is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.
As I said in response to his earlier comment, I think Spur is correct in his interpretation of sola scriptura. You presented the following:
I don't think this is quite right. I think the final sentence should read: "Sola scriptura says that I don't need the foregoing to understand what is necessary for salvation."
This principle concerns the locus of authoritative informtion about salvation rather than what is necessary for salvation. In fact, I don't believe there is any inconsistency in the notion that while scripture is the ultimate authority on matters of salvation, one might be saved without ever having encountered scripture -- perhaps through grace.
Enjoying the comments muchly; but at the risk of ignoring some otherwise important topics, I will add this as well.
I understood the gist of Bill's original post (especially in context with the preceding two--and linked to his recent discussions of Buddhist soteriology), to be an analysis of positions traditionally taken by Christians on the topic "What do I need to be saved?" And his most recent comment in the thread seems to continue along this line.
My first qualification would be: saved _from what?_ (The recent posts and comments on Buddhist soteriology did a good job at including this as a topic of the doctrine, I thought.)
Until we answer the 'from what', we are not in much position to evaluate whether this or that doctrine is correctly giving an answer about what is necessary for salvation.
For what it is worth, I would not teach that the Church, nor priests, nor scripture are any of them necessary for salvation. Nor the holding of any doctrine (ultra-doctrinaire though I am).
What is primarily necessary for salvation (whatever the 'from what' is), must be the action of God to save.
Jason
Certainly the "correctness" of scripture is closely and necessarily tied to the concept of sola scriptura. A predominant view about this "correctness" is that the Bible is inerrant. Those who accept Biblical inerrancy hold that Scripture is infallible, or without error, in the original manuscripts only. Given that we do not have any of the original texts, we do not now posses Scripture in this form. When discussing sola scriptura, I believe infallibility is to be interpreted in this same context.
What we are left with is a question of interpretation. And here I think the line between Protestantism and Catholocism blurs, for Protestants attest that right interpretation comes through guidance by the Holy Spirit and the tradition of right inspiration that has preceeded us. Catholics attest that the church itself, through these same means, provides the right interpretation. I do not mean to minimize differences to the point of absurdity, but the differences really do end up being a matter of ecclesiology in the end. I'm no expert, however, so please do offer correction where it is appropriate.
Chris
Doesn't sola scriptura imply both? Doesn't it imply that one does not need the church (with its traditions, theologians, priests, sacraments) to attain salvation, and ALSO that one does not need the church to understand what is necessary for salvation?
I agree that sola scriptura pertains to salvation, as do many other doctrines not clearly taught in the Bible. But in order for your objection to succeed, you need something stronger: that it is necessary to believe sola scriptura in order to have saving faith. Only then would the doctrine refute itself, as you suggest it does. But belief in sola scriptura isn't required (or even helpful) for salvation, even if that doctrine does pertain to salvation. Recall Godfrey's claim: "all things [that it is] necessary [to believe] for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand." This is quite different from saying that all things pertaining to salvation are clearly taught in the Bible, something that no reasonable person would have ever claimed.
You and I apparently have different conceptions of sola scriptura. Perhaps mine isn't historically faithful (I think it is), but I fail to see the inconsistency in it. You claim that "if sola scriptura is understood as resting on the doctrine of infallibility then the theory, itself, would be have a portion of its foundation on a doctrine that is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible." But this isn't an inconsistency in my definition of sola scriptura, because that doctrine doesn't entail that sola scriptura itself is taught clearly in scripture, something that cannot be sustained. To borrow from Godfrey above, sola scriptura is only the claim 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." But as I've said before, it isn't necessary to believe sola scriptura in order to have saving faith, or in order to live the Christian life. Am I missing the inconsistency you see here?
Incidentally, I've never heard of the idea that the writers of the Bible were "celestial word-processors," but it is surely false to suggest that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible arose only in the 19th century. The reformers may not have used the word 'infallible' (or one of its cognates), but they certainly had the concept, and they clearly affirmed the infallibility of the Bible, as did the Church fathers over the years.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.