The title of this blog-site is deliberately misleading; I only wish I was confirmed about my own theological beliefs. The nature of my blog is biographical and not intentionally argumentative. With that understanding, I would like perspective on a few questions I have regarding the doctrine of sola scriptura. Rant, cuss, persuade - I'd like to know what others are feeling on the subject.
- How do you understand the doctrine of sola scriptura?
- Do you see any shortcomings in the doctrine? If so, what are they?
- If you accept the doctrine, how do you reconcile it with the multiplicity of differing theological systems - at least those that operate under the doctrine of sola scriptura?
I'm honestly not looking for a fight; these are questions I have asked myself, and I've not been 100% satisfied with my answers.
Posts
Sola Scriptura to me is a comforting doctrine. It allows a Christian to make judgement's about what he/she is being taught against the teaching of scripture.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Jim Jones of Guyana instructed his followers to commit suicide by drinking grape coolaid tainted with poison. Clearly he was outside of the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" and his followers, through their ignorance of this doctrine, allowed themselves to be victimized by his extra-scriptural revelations.
Sola Scriptura was also the rallying cry of the reformation in response to the Catholic Church abuses such as the selling of indulgences.
I get it that you are not "100% satisfied". I think the main point is that there are widely accepted mainstream denominations that agree on most points. Clearly there are other points of view that are way out of mainstream and clearly not based on Scripture Alone. Sure, anyone can argue with a certain amount of leeway of interpretation, but if they hold to "sola scriptura" they are at least limited in the scope of the disagreement. The main points remain fairly consistent.
Crazy! I was just about to blog about sola scriptura. I'll be sure to direct folks to your site when I do.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with your previous statement: "When we proclaim the notion of sola scriptura, we neglect the original authority of Church leaders that put together that Scripture. In other words, sola scriptura is simply impossible. The very texts of Scripture were canonized by the authority of the Church."
So true!
Too often evangelicals treat the Bible as if it exists in a vacuum, failing to acknowledge the fact that we relied on church tradition for its compilation, and that we continue to rely on other things (like reason and experience) for its interpretation.
However, I would argue that we should refrain from proclaiming "sola" anything...including church tradition. Tradition, Scripture, Reason, and Experience all play a role in forming our religious identity. I get why people desire a PRIMARY authority in their life...but placing SOLE authority on one thing or another seems to neglect how interconnected these things are.
Great blog! I'll put a link on my site.
Isn't another way of saying "sola scriptura" pretty much... sola "council of trent?" I mean, in a way, if you even say "sola scriptura" aren't you assuming authority in that council (and it's tradition) as well as scripture? ...but if so, then, we're not in the realm of "sola" anymore. I think "sola" anything starts to break down once we add the practical elements of human interpretation and history.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about Sola Scriptura is that many treat it as (to preface Ken Gentry) "Solo" Scripture or Scripture only. No creed but the Bible is self-defeating. That statement is a creed. So when Sola Scriptura is pronounced as a defense, it depends on who is doing the pronouncing.
ReplyDeleteI think perspectivalism is helpful when it comes to theology and the importance of different doctrines. John Frame has presented a tri-perspectivalism that includes the normative, situational and existential. If I were to write a book that incorporated those themes, I'd call it "God, the world, and ourselves." Note the tri-method.
In the case of the Bible, it is normative. It is the inscripturated word of God. So whether through the means of hearing it as Abraham did, or reading it, as we do, it is to be the primary source of our personal knowledge of God. This is the goal for the world, that all would know the Lord as the waters cover the seas.
The situational has to do with applying Scripture to the world. The Great Commission would be an example of this. In a way, the application of Scripture is its meaning. The 10 Commandments do not have anything saying, "You shall not launder money." But money laundering falls under the application of "You shall not steal," because it is a way of defrauding persons or groups in order to gain an advantage that will be a benefit financially.
The existential would cover things like human emotions, our reason, what the Bible would call the "heart." Perhaps Paul's description of the inner battle with sin described in Romans 7 is an adequate example.
Note also that all three perspectives can each be found in the other. Scripture contains recordings of God interacting with his people and the people responding together in worship with the result that the people are changed and grow in the knowledge of the Lord. While each perspective contains qualities of the other two, it does not necessarily mean each is always interchangeable. Scripture (or God or Christ) will always fall under the normative.
To use what is usually attributed to Anglicanism: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Scripture would be the normative, Tradition the situational, and Reason the existential. In the case of Reason, it does not necessarily mean theoretical reasoning, but participatory knowledge--to know something was to experience it or participate in something.
Thanks for your responses! This is exactly what I was looking for.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I appreciate that the doctrine is comforting to you. That is an aspect of theology that I often forget to factor. Thanks for the reminder that a theology needs not only to "answer the questions", but also, at some point, needs to put our minds at rest. Good thoughts.
Rachel & Dan - no offense intended by lumping you two together - thanks for the reminder that Christianity does not rely solely on any one aspect (scripture, history, leadership, etc.); rather, it grows up out of all those aspects. A very important thing to keep in mind.
Ked, your reasoned (and well-documented) approach to these issues is always helpful. One day, John Frame will pay you referral fees for continually quoting him.
Bishop Wright gave an excellent address at the current Lambeth conference. It was posted on his page ntwrightpage.com.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Lambeth2008.htm