15 May, 2008...1:00 pm
In search of a reference point.

Discussions with self-appointed-Protestant-apologists are often sidelined (salvation, the papacy, Mary, etc) from the real issue: theological method. The simple truth is that a bad tree (method) cannot produce good fruit (doctrine and morals).
Wikipedia (if Wikipedia says it, it must be true) states that Sola scriptura was (is??) a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation. So, to continue a bad metaphor, the Protestant tree stands or falls by this one principle. Wikipedia gives us a good working definition for Sola Scriptura:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the assertion that the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter (”Scripture interprets Scripture”), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
Assuming the above to be semi-correct (and I am very happy for someone to float a different definition), allow me to ask two simple questions of our separated brethren:
- Is Sola Scriptura scriptural?
- The definition above illustrates the major problem with the idea of Sola Scriptura in one word: self-authenticating. For this to be true the Bible must claim for itself the place given to it in Reformed Protestant Theology. It must, in other words, state that it is the final authority for all issues of Christian doctrine. If, however, it is held as an assumption, room is given for a higher authority.
Yet, this issue goes further. The Bible must be explicit (in the words of the definition, clear) on all issues and not tacit since the latter requires an interpretive agent. This issue is central: what is clear? Who is a rational reader? For example, are the words of Jesus clear when he says This is my Body? How is the doctrine of the Trinity scriptural?
- Is Sola Scriptura historical?
- The above defines the Bible as the written word. How did this written word come into existence? Was there a time when this written word was not but there was a group of people who dedicated their lives completely to Jesus? Further, taking the assumption that the Bible self-authenticating, where is the list of the canonical books to be found in the Bible?
The issue is further clouded when one asks whether there is a historical continuity to this idea. How does novelty make for good theology?
BTW: There is a Star Trek movie (is it The Search for Spock?) where Spock and Bones discuss Spock’s death. Spock simply says that unless they find a referrence point they cannot start the discussion. Well, Mr Self-Appointed-Internet-Protestant-Apologist, unless we find a reference point there is no discussion!


6 Comments
16 May, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Q: Does God self-authenticate?
If He is God, then yes, He must. (as there is no higher authority to appeal to) If this is the case, surely everything He says must, by extension, be self-authenticating? How can the Word of God be ultimately authenticated by anything else?
17 May, 2008 at 9:21 am
Thanks for the question &y!
The argument has a fundamental flaw: it only stands if you equate God with the Bible. The Bible is not God but announces the Good News of the full revelation of God in his only Son. Yes, God is self-authenticated because he is God. He is the ultimate end of all actions. But can the same be said of the Bible?
Yet, the question is already answered: yes God ultimately authenticates the Bible through his appointed means! Within the Church that is led by the Holy Spirit the Bible is authenticated, verified, and interpreted by the Holy Spirit. The Church through God’s appointed means - the Tradition handed on from Jesus to the Apostles, and the teaching authority of the Church - codified the Bible into its original form.
The argument for Sola Scriptura further has a flaw (that I already pointed out but needs further addressing here): how is the canonicity of the books determined? Or, who told you the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are inspired?
I am very happy to discuss the topic further with civility and love, not with accusations and straw-men. It is my wrestling with being a Protestant that drew me into the Catholic Church.
17 May, 2008 at 11:07 am
For the Bible to be of *any use at all* - it must be held that:
* all of Scripture is God’s Word (and thus authenticated by the mere fact that God spoke it) and
* God does not contradict Himself.
Given these two things, if (and there is disagreement among Christians here) God does reveal Himself directly to Christians and give them some revelation, *that revelation CANNOT go against anything in the Bible*. In other words, God will not contradict Himself.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura was reinstated during the Reformation, purely and simply, because the Reformers saw the Catholic church declaring doctrines that did contradict the Scriptures:
* Indulgences - contradicting Paul’s declaration that grace is not received by works (Ephesians 2)
* Transsubstantiation mysticism brought out of interpreting a metaphor literally (and this is a relatively “new” doctrine, only brought in during the 14th century)
amongst others.
“yes God ultimately authenticates the Bible through his appointed means! Within the Church that is led by the Holy Spirit the Bible is authenticated, verified, and interpreted by the Holy Spirit.”
I couldn’t agree more :-)
“The Church through God’s appointed means - the Tradition handed on from Jesus to the Apostles, and the teaching authority of the Church - codified the Bible into its original form.”
On this, however, I disagree. If Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), then it makes more sense to say that the Holy Spirit (and not the Church by itself) codified the Bible into its original form. If it’s God’s Word (ie, He spoke it), why wouldn’t He compile it too? And by the same means (inspiration and divine guidance)?
The problem with placing trust in human tradition is that we are not perfect, and make many mistakes. To claim that these mistakes are ok because they’re done under God’s authority is a gross slight of God’s character…
17 May, 2008 at 11:50 am
Allow me to parade my ignorance and simply ask: how did the Bible come into existence? Where there human beings involved? Or did it comes straight from heaven? How do you take the human out of any of this? Is the Bible not a tradition even within Protestantism?
Or, to put it another way: who decides whether something is “God-breathed” and something else is not? Note, for example, that the Creed (which I assume you do not accept) place the Holy Spirit and the Church in close connection.
May I just ask how If it’s God’s Word (ie, He spoke it), why wouldn’t He compile it too? is any different to what I said above: the Church codified the Bible? How is it easier to believe in a mystical collection rather than the spirit-filled Church being used by God as his means?
17 May, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I think we’re actually pretty close to one another, but where our disagreement arises is from the practical implications.
I have no problem with the Holy Spirit using real people to both write and compile the Bible, as that’s how I believe we got the Bible that we have - as I’m sure you do. The reason Protestants do not count the Apocrypha as canon is because some books are fiction treated as history, or contain factual / theological errors. I’m not well versed on the Apocrypha, though.
I’m not sure which Creed you refer to, although if you mean either the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds, I have no grief with them.
So I think we’re talking at cross-purposes on that issue.
What Protestants believe is that the Holy Spirit is no longer the driver of the Catholic Church, and that Catholic traditions have brought in doctrines that are fundamentally incompatible with Christianity (prayer to / worship of Mary & the saints, justification by works, Papal infallibility, grace by church edict via indulgences, etc).
17 May, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Thanks, &y!
What Protestants believe is that the Holy Spirit is no longer the driver of the Catholic Church…
I think you have stated the Protestant case well. And this really is the point! Catholics (me thinks) can make a very good point from the Bible that Catholicism is scriptural. And Protestants (me thinks) can make a very good point to say it is not.
But this assumption is the real nub of the problem. Yet it is pre-theology (if one were to use such a term). It is an experience that claims the status of being a priori. So to discuss the issues you listed is like shadow boxing - very entertaining but in the end it solves nothing.
The issue that I have raised before is simply how does one respond (I do not like feel) to the Catechism 816 (and 830): … the sole Church of Christ … subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter … . Like Jesus, it is either true (and one must join) or it is false (and one must proclaim it as such).
Leave a Reply