Nice reminder on the importance of scripture, and good examples that help to highlight the place of scripture. I especially like the way you remind us that scripture doesn’t preclude all other sources of information, but must be the yardstick by which we measure our actions and responses.

Perhaps it would be helpful to bring out from scripture itself why scripture is so important as the main source of God’s word...?

Lionel, you have focussed on sola scriptura in the light of specifically controversial or disputed topics - where scripture and experience disagree. 

However, does the doctrine have anything to say about our ‘ordinary’ working theological method? The magisterial reformers certainly thought that tradition, experience and reason were important in their place. The anabaptists were different…

Michael’s question about an “ordinary theological working method” is a very good one. Given that Sola Scriptura seems to have no Scriptural basis, except through the most tortuous of theological gymnastics, where in the ether do people derive their position of Sola Scriptura, let alone their fidelity to some type of a systematic theology from? It seems to me that Sola Scriptura is simply an erroneous Protestant tradition and that people cherry pick the traditions and experiences that they like and then claim that this is what Scripture actually says.

Michael, every time I suggest something, somebody keeps moving the goalposts - it’s pretty frustrating.

Actually, I do think that if Reformers such as Martin Luther could be said to have embraced Sola Scripture, it is certainly a different Sola Scripture to that embraced by most Calvinists today. Luther regarded the Immaculate Conception of Mary as a sweet and pious belief, notwithstanding the fact that he did not see the doctrine as explicitly set forth in Scripture.

Isn’t the Scriptural basis for sola Scriptura the authority of Jesus? Isn’t it the fact that Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18)?
Once we know that Jesus has universal authority, we still have to answer the question, “how does Jesus exercise his authority?” Surely it is through Scripture.
In Matthew 28 the authority of Jesus leads to the command for the apostles to go and make disciples. Jesus exercises his authority by commissioning his authorised witnesses to go out and preach the gospel and teach people about him.
How do the disciples do that? Well, to start with, many of them traveled around preaching and teaching. But over time they wrote down for us their witness to Jesus. The result is that the way we experience the authority of Jesus today is through His Word. If you want to know Jesus’ authority then you go to the Spirit-inspired writings of the Prophets and the Apostles. That is how Jesus exercises his universal authority.
And that’s clearly how the apostles saw it. John writes that “We [apostles] are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognise the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” (1 John 4:6) How you respond to the Bible is how you respond to the Lord Jesus.
The consequences of that are expressed neatly in the slogan ‘Scripture alone’, that the Bible critiques every other source of authority. It interprets and supersedes everything else.

Because it is a question about authority, not source. The Reformers believed, on pretty good evidence mind you, that tradition could err and had erred, and what’s more had contradicted scripture, and needed correction. But that doesn’t mean they thought tradition was worthless. On the contrary. Their writings abound with appeals to authorities other than scripture, but these have a secondary role.

Once again, I think you have confused the position reformed evangelicals classially maintain with a more anabaptist position.

Michael, I’m not quite sure you understand me. I recognise the role that tradition can play (or at least is said to play) in scriptural interpretation for Calvinists. That said, I’m not convinced that contemporary Reformed practice reflects this understanding. Even in Lionel’s hypothetical narrative that he links to in his last post, Gus the Protestant objects to Ash Wednesday because its not in the Bible. That is, he objects to Ash Wednesday not because it contradicts what is written in the Bible, but because the reference can’t be found within the Bible. I’d suggest that the same situation would exist with respect to the Assumption of Mary. Do Protestants really object to this doctrine because they believe it contradicts Scripture (i.e. does Scripture attest to the fact that Mary died?), or rather do they object to the doctrine because it is not found within Scripture?

Using the terms of the music ministry debate, I see two distinct positions:

Regulative Principle: All matters of faith and conduct are found within the Scriptures. No independent revelation relating to faith and conduct exists outside of Scripture.

Normative Principle: Scripture does not err with respect to matters of faith or conduct, but tradition can speak to matters of faith or conduct that do not contradict with Scripture, even though they may not be set forth in Scripture.

Taking into consideration Martin Luther’s stance on the Immaculate Conception, what camp does he fall into? And more importantly, what camp would you suggest contemporary Calvinists fall into?

I am a convert from Evangelical Anglicanism to Catholicism. I discovered that the Bible nowhere teaches sola scriptura. Furthermore that Sola Scriptura was unknown to the early Church.

I discovered that the Word of God is nowhere in Scripyture restricted to scripture, and that there was an unwritten tradition.

The next step was you need an infallible Church to tell you what Holy Scripture means, or you are clutching at straws.

For instance some Evangelicals read into Scripture that re-marriage after divirce is adultery and others that it is acceptable.

.
How do I know which is the true interpreation.

Indeed in witnessing to homosexuals this division is hidden ( look at the Reform Covenant and Covenant for the Church of England 2007)as it casts doubt on the perspicuity of Scripture.

That is why in addressing the Apostles our Blessed Lord said,

Simon, Simon,Satan has desired to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you(singular ..addressed exclusively to peter) and after your restoration to faith , confirm yoyur brethren with a faith that will not fail.

Dear Michael,

I do not doubt the infallibility and authority of the Scriptures, but please quote a Church father or early Church figure who teaches that the Bible alone is our sole authority?

How do you know that the Epistle of Barnabas is NOT Scripture and the Epistle of James is. Wasn’t it the Church that determined this?

Caricature..! How do you know
( in my example of divorce ) which exegesis is the one intended by Our Blessed lord?

Why do Godly men lke Don Carson, not see infant baptism in the Scripture?

Arius appealed to Scripture..but how do you know he was wrong?

How can Archbishop jensen see justification for women preaching and his brother miss this?

Surely sola scripturea is marred by fallible ( albeit sincere) private judgement.

*please quote a Church father or early Church figure who teaches that the Bible alone is our sole authority?*

Lionel did not argue it was, and nor did Michael! They said, very clearly, that other things (like tradition and reason) have varying degrees of authority.

However, evangelicals believe that Scripture alone is the *final* authority on matters of faith.

Regarding the need for an infallible church to interpret - well, if you can’t understand what the bible says, why do you have confidence that you can understand what the church is saying?

It takes a great deal of effort to believe in the infallibility of the popes and councils, because they are always contradicting one another. For example, JP II described Buddhism as a great religion, Pius X described it as a false, pagan religion. There are hundreds of examples like that.

As Luther famously said -

“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.”

One has to distinguish between Catholics speaking as individuals and the authoratative voice of the Magisterium.Pope’s can make mistakes on a personal level.Anyway i don’t feel it would be helpful at this juncture to discuss the Roman Catholic claims to be continuity of the early Church.

I find that the Scripture tells me that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. ( 1 Tim 3:15)

The Fathers nowhere reject the authority of the Church . St.Augustine of Hippo states he would not accept the Gospels , without the Church.

As I previously asked ..how do you know which New Testament books belong in the Canon?..as Scripture does not list them, and they were disputed in the early Church.An
“ extra-biblical;” authority determined it.

Even Martin Luther expressed disquiet at to what was in the Canon.

Jesus did not write or deposit a book(,as in islam) he established a teaching Church.

Anyway, given what Robert is claimed, this should be a simple question - what *is* the infallible Catholic position on the religion of Buddhism?

Does there even need to be one? What about the infallible position on the propriety of buying a Mazda 323? Or the infallible position on whether Cab Sav is really better than Merlot?

However, given the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I’d suggest that the Church would regard Buddhism as both “great” and “false”. Great, in the sense that it contains some spiritual truths, and false, in the sense that it does not contain all the fullness of the truth found in the Catholic Church. Rather the same as Calvinism, I should think, although Calvinism could probably claim to have more of the fullness of the Catholic Church than does Buddhism.

Mark Thompson’s book, A Clear and Present Word is a modern defence of the clarity of Scripture. It encourages a continuing bold and confident use of the Bible in the light of those who say it’s too hard to understand or that it can be interpreted in all sorts of different and even contradictory ways. For example, Thompson writes…

Jesus appears to operate on the assumption that when the words of Scripture are read or heard, they will be understood, at least well enough understood to warrant an acknowledgment that he is who he says he is and that his words are true. Yet this overarching confidence does not exclude the possibility that an individual passage might prove difficult, such that the exhortation ‘let the reader understand’ is appropriate. He is not suggesting that every text is transparent, that understanding is always and in every case automatic or simple. Nevertheless, in general terms the Scriptures can only operate the way they do in Jesus’ teaching ministry because they are assumed to make sense as they stand. This assumption enables him to hold accountable those who claim to know the Scriptures but fail to respond to him with repentance and faith (John 5:36-47). [p87]

Earlier, David suggested you couldn’t get the idea of sola scriptura out of the Bible except by convoluted means. Others have already made some suggestions about this issue, but what follows was one attempt of mine to demonstrate this from Jesus’ words in the Gospels…

Let’s hear Jesus on the Scriptures. What was his attitude?

Christians are people who believe in Jesus; who have come to love Jesus; people who want to be more like Jesus. So I would imagine that anyone who wants to be like Jesus will want to share the same attitude Jesus had on the Scriptures. And Jesus rejects the ‘pick and choose’ approach. For him, the Scriptures were the supreme authority. For him, the Scriptures cannot be broken.

Let me illustrate this by rapid-fire tour of some of the things Jesus says on the Scriptures. (By the way, the term ‘Scripture’ simply means ‘writing’. In the New Testament, the “Scriptures” particularly refer to the collected writings of the Old Testament considered to be the Word of God. Sometimes, these writings were also called “the Law and the Prophets”.)

Let’s start with Jesus before the start of his public ministry, in Matthew 4:4. Satan says to Jesus, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” And Matthew 4:4 -

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

He’s quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 from the Old Testament Law section. We do not live by some of the words of God. No picking and choosing there. We are to rely on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Move on to ch. 5, the Sermon on the Mount, where, Matt 5:17-18, Jesus says:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

The coming of Jesus - his perfect life, his sacrificial death, his amazing resurrection as Lord - it completes or fulfils what the Old Testament pointed to. Therefore his coming may change the way we apply and observe, for example, the Old Testament laws. But he is very definite about what was written. Every ‘i’ was to remain dotted. Every ‘t’ was to remain crossed. No picking and choosing.

In Matthew 15, Jesus places the Word of God over above the oral traditions of the elders, when some Pharisees and Scribes asked him why his disciples did not ceremonially wash before eating.

V3 records,

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?”

Immediately in v4 Jesus quotes the written Torah - part of Old Testament Scriptures about honouring your father and mother.

Most noticeably for those who wish to elevate the place of tradition, he warns in v6 against those who

nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

What about Matthew 22:29? The resurrection-denying Sadducees tried to trap Jesus with a tricky hypothetical. We don’t have time to go into the issue. But how did Jesus answer their challenge? Well, he quotes from the Old Testament to prove his particular point. And before that in Matthew 22:29 -

Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures...”

John’s Gospel also shows that Jesus took the Scriptures as his highest authority. Take John 10:35. Some of Jesus’ opponents wanted to stone him for blasphemy. Why? Because, v. 33, they knew he was claiming to be God. Again, we can’t go into details. But to defend himself, Jesus again quotes what is written in the Old Testament. He then says, John 10:35,

“...and the Scripture cannot be broken”

Jesus says that what the Scriptures say, God says. And God does not lie. And so Jesus tells his opponents it’s inexcusable to set aside parts of the Bible that don’t suit their preconceptions or that are inconvenient right now.

Lastly, I also want you to see what the later parts of the New Testament say of itself. For example, the author and apostle, Paul says this in 1 Timothy 5:18.

For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

Now it was common, as I said, to use the word ‘Scripture’ to refer to the Old Testament. In. v18, the first quote comes from Deuteronomy 25:4. But you won’t find the second quote here anywhere in the Old Testament. Rather it’s a direct quote from the lips of Jesus, which you can find in Luke 10:7. That is, Paul puts the words of Jesus, which we only find written down in Luke on a par with a quote from the Old Testament. He says both fit into the same authoritative category: from the one, singular God-breathed ‘Scripture’.

Likewise, as many would know, Peter refers to Paul’s writings in the same category as the Old Testament Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16

[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. [My emphasis.]

Indeed Paul appears to know he was writing Scripture. E.g., 1 Corinthians 14:37.

If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.

I presume this is why, that, under God’s inspiration, Paul directed that his letters be kept and shared with others, for example, Colossians 4:16.

After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

This is how we got our Bible. This is why we got the Scriptures. And it helps explain why we think they are sufficient and authoritative.

Sandy, thanks for your trilogy of posts on a Scriptural defence of Sola Scriptura. Seems Scriptural, sensible and unforced to this little black duck.

* But no one answers the question why they know the Epistle to James to be Scriptural and the Epistle to Barnabas to be uncanonical? *

On a related note, how do you know which papal statements are fallible, and which are infallible?

To Sandy Grant,

Your exegetical contortions to retrospectively defend SS remain unconvincing.  Ultimately your argument is a “Bare Assertion Fallacy”, that is, an argument that breaks down due to its self referencing nature.  Your conclusion is reliant on the hypothesis, and the hypothesis is reliant on the conclusion.

Put another way “The Bible is the ultimate authority. This I know because the Bible says so”.

David Hume in the late 1500’s demonstrated this with unique clarity that the Church has still not comes to terms with.

Best wishes.

Robert, you issue a series of questions and statements, as if they automatically prove your point. QED. End of story!

This method of arguing possibly has a slightly ‘told you so’ tone to it. Further it ignores the fact that these issues have been well debated in other forums - for example, standard systematic theology textbooks (for example chapter 3 of my edition of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology has a chapter on the canon of Scripture. Grudem outlines his case, but also shows a sympathetic awareness of other views and when disagreeing with them tries to represent the alternative argument in its strongest form, so he is not just knocking over a ‘straw man’. In his case, he also consistently references readers not only to various systematic theologies in the various protestant traditions, but also to two representative Roman Catholic works.)

In other words, I am suggesting you might like to mount an argument (one at a time) which engages with the issues in some detail, rather than rely on a series of rhetorical questions which tends itself towards ‘begging the question’.

David C, how can you say
“David McKay alluded to the evangelical explanation - apparently the canon just fell out of the sky and we discovered it.”

in response to:

This process took time, and we believe that God guided his people as they pondered over the various letters and documents.

Stephen, you wrote

Your exegetical contortions to retrospectively defend SS remain unconvincing.  Ultimately your argument is a “Bare Assertion Fallacy”, that is, an argument that breaks down due to its self referencing nature.  Your conclusion is reliant on the hypothesis, and the hypothesis is reliant on the conclusion.
Put another way “The Bible is the ultimate authority. This I know because the Bible says so”.

Ironically enough your comment here contains its own ‘bare assertion’, namely that I made “exegetical contortions”. Yet you nowhere detailed what these exegetical contortions were, let alone providing evidence of why they were contortions. Just a bare assertion!

And actually I was not aiming to provide a complete defence of sola scriptura, but was answering David Castor’s comment (in his first post above) asking where in the Bible we got the idea of sola scriptura from. Hence my presentation of what Jesus said in the Gospels etc. (I will try and get to David’s recent interaction with what I said - but I have a ministry to attend to here in the Gong!)

However, Stephen, you are right that on first glance, an argument about the Bible’s authority from within the Bible seems self-referencing or circular.

Many ordinary Christians are happy to accept the Bible as the Word of God. Christians would say this is because of the work of the Holy Spirit in them attesting to the truth of the Bible, aalongside what we call the self-attesting nature of the Scriptures. In itself, one could argue this is subjective (and in this post-modern era, an subjective appeal is not always seen as a totally bad thing).

However, my argument is more than this. As I read the Gospels on a historical level, I was persuaded that they provide reliable historical information about Jesus, his teaching and his activities. For example, recently I have been reading Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony where he makes the case that the four Gospels contain considerable contact with eye-witness testimony to Jesus’ activities, far more than Jesus Seminar sceptics would allow.

There is also reasonable evidence that these writers provides reliable incidental (i.e. background) information, for example, in regards to currency, geography, polity, public figures, terminology of the time and place etc. This incidental reporting reliability enhances my assessment of the reliability of their reporting of Jesus.

(Authors I have found helpful here include Craig Blomberg and Paul Barnett, and more popularly, John Dickson and Lee Strobel.)

In other words, I am persuaded that the Gospels give good evidence about what Jesus taught and claimed, and what he did, in particular in dying on the cross and rising from the dead.

And since I am persuaded by the evidence that he rose from the dead, then I accept that he is who he claimed to be: God’s Messiah, indeed God’s Son come in the flesh. And so I should believe what he believes. And what he believed about the Scriptures is what I outlined in my previous posts.

I found Peter Jensen’s book The Revelation of God very helpful. It begins with the starting point of the gospel - as testimony to Jesus - as the entry point into the doctrine of revelation.

[FRIENDLY MODERATOR COMMENT]

Hi everybody, your friendly moderator Gordon Cheng checking in to say thank you for the comments so far.

We are still just working through early days of the blog, and you will probably see a few changes in the next little while. At the moment, we are asking all blog commenters to use their first and last name while posting (although we’re pretty relaxed about it at this stage—don’t worry Steve!).

We will be experimenting over the next little while with things like comment moderation to defeat the evil spammers, and maybe other ways to help keep our discussion on track. Please let us know your feedback on stuff like this through briefingATmatthiasmedia.com.au, replacing the ‘AT’ with an @.