Is Sola Scriptura self-refuting because it's not mentioned in the Bible and means that what Christians believe should come from the Bible?
Comments
Notice that Greg is actually defending a weaker claim than you might realize. He is not claiming to have demonstrated the truth of Sola Scriptura, which would require demonstrating that authorities such as the Magisterium are not inerrant. Instead, he wishes to sidestep this by framing the issue in terms of burden of proof. He frames the issue in terms of epistemic practice with regard to the authority of Scripture rather than the harder issue of the fact of the matter about whether there are more inerrant authorities than Scripture. The attitude seems to be that we ought to take Scripture and nothing else as our inerrant authority until it has been demonstrated that another inerrant authority exists. Notice that is not Sola Scriptura as we are used to seeing it, which is a claim about how many inerrant authorities there are (only one). Rather, Greg is defending a claim about epistemic justification. To see how weak the proposition he defends really is, notice that it is consistent with being completely agnostic about there being other inerrant authorities. It is obviously possible to take Scripture and nothing else as your inerrant authority simply because one is agnostic about whether or not the Magisterium or whatever is inerrant while one assents to the inerrancy of Scripture. So, Greg has made it a lot easier on himself by defending the weaker (and less interesting) claim that we ought to take Scripture as our inerrant authority and nothing else until another inerrant authority has been demonstrated. Greg may successfully defend such a claim, but that is a far cry from showing the truth of the proposition “Scripture and Scripture alone is an inerrant authority.” That would require demonstrating that all non-Scriptural authorities fail to be inerrant, which is something Greg wants to avoid.
But I think Greg has successfully responded to a sophomoric critique of Sola Scriptura while ignoring more substantive critiques. But that makes the task easier as well…Perhaps Frank Beckwith could remind us of the good objections to Sola Scriptura rather than the dumb ones.
Locke, I think you may have missed the point. Not to undermine your point (which, is a valid one to make in one regard), but the issue greg is addressing is infact a very small issue of a misunderstanding of Sola-Scriptura, even if he did expand his point a bit. What you are pointing towards is an actual critical examination of the truthiness of the Bible as the final authority, in light of other authorities. This is course, is the actual issue where legitemate challenges can be raised (wether or not sola scriptura is actually reliable). Actually critical examination, case by case, as to wether or not the Bible can be seen as the final authority.
Its not that hes ignoring the substantive critiques. That would require a 40 hour + video. And I dont even think thats Greg's area of speciality. Furthermore in light of the blog post, the video is clearly not intended to answer the assertions you have raised. Dont take that as me trying to be dismissive!
You are right that Greg is not intending to give a full defense of Sola Scriptura in this video. However, I have heard Greg speak on this issue and noticed that he has repeatedly retreated into collapsing the discussion into an issue of burden of proof. That is perfectly acceptable, of course, but it must be recognized that that maneuver is actually a retreat from defending the stronger claim that Christians ought to believe that Scripture alone is the inerrant authority. We may distinguish these four claims:
(1) Supposing no non-Scriptural authority has been shown to be inerrant, Christians ought to believe that Scripture is inerrant and ought to refrain from believing that another authority is inerrant.
(2) Supposing no non-Scriptural authority has been shown to be inerrant, Christians ought to believe that Scripture is inerrant and ought to believe that no other authority is inerrant.
(3) No non-Scriptural authority is inerrant.
(4) Scripture is an inerrant authority and no non-Scriptural authority is inerrant.
Notice that Sola Scriptura is usually taken to mean something quite strong, as in (3) and (4) above. However, when discussing Sola Scriptura, Greg concerns himself almost exclusively with (1), the weakest claim among the set. I suppose he can concern himself with what he pleases, but it should be noted that (1) is weak enough that the Pope himself could agree! Furthermore, my bet is that most Protestants believe something more like (3) or (4) with regard to Sola Scriptura, and I would be interested in hearing more in defense of these stronger theses.
As I said, I think Greg effectively dismantled the objection that Sola Scriptura is self-refuting. However, I think this is really a poor objection to begin with and so its refutation isn’t all that impressive or interesting. It would be far more interesting if STR engaged the best objections to views they hold, as opposed to poor objections that are easily dispensed with. Perhaps they do this because these poor objections are what Christians usually run into. Fine. But an unfortunate consequence of this kind of selective analysis is that Protestants are not exposed to better objections and get a false sense of confidence in their position over that of the Catholics. Unfortunately, I think the fault for this false sense of confidence resides mostly at the feet of apologists.
Thanks for your comments Locke.
I would like to see more substantive claims against sola Scriptura, but it has to be properly understood in the first place. It is a very commonly misunderstood, and hence 'straw manned' subject. Frank Beckwith could, I'm sure thrash lil' ol' me on the subject, as probably could you. But, I do know this- the Magisterium fails to beget unity in the church body- a common claim against sola scriptura (specifically, that the multiple denominations of protestants holding to SS are not unified, and hold to different opinions on multiple subjects in spite of one authority- the Bible). Look at the last election. Huge numbers of Catholics voted against their Mother Church and voted for the current president, whose stance on abortion (etc) is against the Magisterium. In fact millions of Catholics worldwide fail to join in unity with the Mother Church- (birth control, abortion) its not that they don't know the position(s), its that they follow their hearts- in disobedience to authority. Man fails to be obedient to the Bible as well. Whatever authority is appealed to, you have to deal with people and their fallen nature. You certainly can't appeal to the Magisterium for unity in the church body!
"However, I think this is really a poor objection to begin with"
Absolutely, and I think you were right to say at the same time this may be as a result of frequent foolish arguments against SS from a 'layperson'... not that I enjoy using that term.. But in any case, now that you have expanded from your original post, I see what you are saying more clearly and I dont think we are in any disagreement from the extended issue of SS. It is infact as you say, most benificial to persue (3) and (4), notwithstanding the purpose of this video.
"in disobedience to authority (Magisterium). Man fails to be obedient to the Bible as well. Whatever authority is appealed to, you have to deal with people and their fallen nature. You certainly can't appeal to the Magisterium for unity in the church body!"
I don't think that disproves the Magisterium, or suggests it has less authority. The Magisterium, just like the Bible, fails to unite humanity because of our shared human nature, as you said (a concept made famous by one theologian within the Magisterum, namely St. Augustine...look at Orthodoxy's take on human nature). How many Bible believing Christians also went against the Bible, and voted for the most pro-abortion candidate (ever)?
I think the argument is that the Magisterium offers doctrinal unity, whereas the various denominations of Protestantism can hold varying views on several issues based upon their reading of the Bible (Look, for instance, at Bishop Jefferts-Schori's claim that individual salvation is a heresy).
(Of course, mainline Protestantism stopped being Christian a while ago...if you don't want to claim them, I would understand :-) )
Perhaps our (assuming) Catholic apologists can enlighten me.
If we accept that there are certain criteria that help us determine why we should trust something as inerrant authority concerning a Creator-God, then it is important to apply this criteria equally to anyone or anything that makes that claim.
If we accept that scripture meets this criteria, then it is an inerrant authority about our Creator and what He wants of us. If we want to live in harmony with this Creator, then it makes sense to follow those teachings.
If other things or people also make claims of inerrant authority, then it must also meet these criteria AND agree with what is already recognized as authority, in this case scripture. Unless of course God is schizophrenic but that doesn't sound like the God of order that made the universe.
Now it is possible that these other claims of authority may disagree with Scripture. But that means either a) the other authority is incorrect b) the other authority is correct and scripture is not an inerrant authority c) neither are authorities d) the criteria we use to determine authorities need to be reexamined.
The problem is not mere agnosticism of other claims of authority. It is simply that we have to evaluate the reliability of each claim of authority both independently and in conjunction with other claims of authority.
Understanding all of this, doesn't it make sense for evangelicals to reject the claims of other authorities if we feel there are good reasons to believe scripture has authority and that other groups or things like the Book of Mormon or the Catholic Magesterium contradict recognized authority?
If we trust that scripture is authoritative and recognize that the Catholic church's teaching on Mary for example, contradicts scripture, then doesn't it make sense that we reject the Catholic Magesterium's claim of authority?
In deed then, then we would be practising SS.
Terry may point to the in-house debates among Evangelical Christians but this pales in comparison to our differences in essentials with Catholics - one of them is our source of authority.
The Catholic Church can point to unity as parts of its claim of authority but this is problematic. As someone who works closely with Catholics, I am always surprised how their theology so easily differs as they point to the very same Catholic authority: ever talk to Charismatic Catholics as opposed to Latin Mass ones? How about Catholics for Free Choice?
Doctrinal unity is great for organizational strength but does not prove that the doctrine you unify around is true. The point is, we can argue SS all we want but if you accept scripture is an inerrant authority then if you want to prove that other things are equal authorities, then you need to prove that those authorities don't contradict scripture.
I like Greg's argument and I find it very persuasive, but by ruling out a Magisterium, is Greg merely moving one step backwards, and merely replacing it with himself? That is, is he claiming that a Magisterium is an illegitimate authority outside the Bible, whilst personal interpretation is legitimate authority? (I think Greg's got too much integrity to do that, but I want to follow it though!)
Greg's booklet, 'Never Read a Bible Verse', is great, but do you think his defense of sola scriptura, here, somehow relies too heavily on scripture's perspicacity, the powers of anyone to interpret scripture themselves untutored, and so might undermine the argument in that booklet?
That is, on his argument, isn't it just as legitimate for me to take verses out of context if I want, as there's no authority apart from scripture, and because there's nothing explicit in scripture telling me not to take verses out of context either, is there?
So, why should I take Greg Koukl as a legitimate authority about not decontexualising scripture verses?
If Greg can have his own interpretation of scripture if any form of Magisterium is illegitimate, then what's wrong with my interpretation if, every day, I let my Bible fall open, and the verse my finger lands on is God's message for me today?
Am I right in thinking that, instead of setting himself up as an authority, what's actually happened is that Greg's slipped in his own tradition - his own 'Magisterium' (which advocates sola scriptura) - but is just not acknowledging or adverting to it?
Greg is a wise teacher, and I can't express how much I have benefitted greatly from his teaching and Stand to Reason, but that's because I'm not an expert, and the Bible's not easy to understand without authoritative teaching.
I'm a Catholic, and I trust our Magisterium based on what it teaches about the nature of the Church and scripture, but I also trust Greg, because his integrity, honesty, great powers of reasoning, and fairness in discussion, are indeed signs of the Holy Spirit working mightily in STR.
"and because there's nothing explicit in scripture telling me not to take verses out of context either, is there?"
You by chosing to read scripture in a way that its atleast somewhat obviously not presented, have also chosen to place yourself above scripture. It would be a very obvious where your final authority lay, given your inclinations to read the text in a manner that is contradictory to the text. (I should note here im speaking to blatant misreadings, which is what i think you wre suggesting, not genuine misunderstandings.)
I'm no expert, so I'm finding it difficult distinguishing between 'blatant misreadings' and 'genuine misunderstandings'. Can you help, please?
Are you saying 'blatant misreadings' are in some way malicious or wilfully misleading? If so, that's a harsh moral judgment about the integrity of someone who might actually be innocent, isn't it? Surely, that would require the ability to read people's minds, and I'm not sure, but I don't think that's possible, is it?
But, on the topic, I might be wrong, but I didn't think I was saying that was my view. I thought I was just posing a hypothetical view which could be held?
Was not my issue with the fact that if Greg can claim direct authority, then why can't anyone else - and therefore choose to interpret scripture any way they like, too?
They might be misreadings, wiful or otherwise, but if there's no authority outside scripture, then can't anyone make whatever interpretation they like of it?
By using the phrase 'blatant misreadings', aren't you actually drawing on a tradition?
That is, for them to be 'blatant misreadings', there must be an authoritative, objective reading to which you're appealing, or it couldn't be classed as a misreading, could it?
As soon as we say anyone's interpretation is wrong, to what, or who, are we appealing? If it's the views of a respected bible commentator or theologian, then it's the equivalent of, or the same as a Magisterium, isn't it?
If, however, it's to ourselves, then what authority have we to claim another's use or interpretation of scripture is wrong - unless we merely posit that we're an authority, and they're not?
If the appeal's directly to scripture as authoritative, and scripture's so clear, then why so many misreadings, misunderstandings and misinterpretations?
If it's not that clear, don't we need authorities to help us understand better and which we trust as being authentic interpreters? If so, call it a Theologian, Bible Scholar, or Magisterium, but they're all seen as authoritative within their own spheres, aren't they?
The fact that SS is not found in Scripture doesn't refute it absolutely, but it should be a strong clue that the 16th century doctrine is not true. If SS is true, then it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Why then is it missing from what is, by its own definition, the source of Christianity's fundamentals? (Why is also missing from Christian belief until the Reformation?)
We trusted the Church as infallible before the canon existed and before the NT was written. If we can't have infallible trust in the Catholic Church, then we cannot have infallible trust in the Scriptures since the Catholic Church told us which books are inspired and which aren't.
"Unless of course God is schizophrenic but that doesn't sound like the God of order that made the universe."
Based on what source of information do you say God is not schizophrenic? Popular theology? Hallmark greeting cards?
"Prove that God doesn't have a body (of some sort) from the Bible alone."
John 4:24 - Jesus tells the woman at the well that "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." The context also confirms the meaning that God is not localized spatially, but transcends spatial and temporal constraints as an incorporeal Being - in essence, a Spirit.
"If SS is true, then it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity."
What do you mean by 'fundamental doctrine'?
"Call it a Theologian, Bible Scholar, or Magisterium, but they're all seen as authoritative within their own spheres, aren't they?"
Yes James - but the authority ascribed to these personages within each group varies distinctly. They are not interchangeable. We do not hold a theologian nor pastor's word to be inerrant, nor on equal footing with the Bible. Man's words do not obligate us spiritually, and they have no explicit authority as does the Magisterium to pronounce official, canonical doctrine.
While I get your concern about abandoning every man to his own interpretation, the solution is not to bind every man to one monolithic institutional authority. Each man is subject to God personally, and the community of believers hold one another accountable to God according to God's written word. The group together is led by the Lord Jesus to keep God's will and follow the teachings of Scripture, and each man is led by the Spirit in his own conscience to keep God's will. This maintains the proper regard of Biblical authority (Sola Scriptura), while also providing moral accountability and ordained teaching according to Corinthians.
And how about 1 Kings 8:27 - But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!
Sola Scriptura is true only if the written word of God is now the sole source of revelation for the whole body of Christ. Meaning that no other revelations are to be added to the hearing of the book of Revelation. That the two partial gifts of the Spirit, gifts of prophecy and word of knowledge have been done away by the perfect prophecy and perfect word of knowledge of the now closed canon of the perfect written word of God. And as a result that the kinds of tongues have ceased.
Notice that Greg is actually defending a weaker claim than you might realize. He is not claiming to have demonstrated the truth of Sola Scriptura, which would require demonstrating that authorities such as the Magisterium are not inerrant. Instead, he wishes to sidestep this by framing the issue in terms of burden of proof. He frames the issue in terms of epistemic practice with regard to the authority of Scripture rather than the harder issue of the fact of the matter about whether there are more inerrant authorities than Scripture. The attitude seems to be that we ought to take Scripture and nothing else as our inerrant authority until it has been demonstrated that another inerrant authority exists. Notice that is not Sola Scriptura as we are used to seeing it, which is a claim about how many inerrant authorities there are (only one). Rather, Greg is defending a claim about epistemic justification. To see how weak the proposition he defends really is, notice that it is consistent with being completely agnostic about there being other inerrant authorities. It is obviously possible to take Scripture and nothing else as your inerrant authority simply because one is agnostic about whether or not the Magisterium or whatever is inerrant while one assents to the inerrancy of Scripture. So, Greg has made it a lot easier on himself by defending the weaker (and less interesting) claim that we ought to take Scripture as our inerrant authority and nothing else until another inerrant authority has been demonstrated. Greg may successfully defend such a claim, but that is a far cry from showing the truth of the proposition “Scripture and Scripture alone is an inerrant authority.” That would require demonstrating that all non-Scriptural authorities fail to be inerrant, which is something Greg wants to avoid.
But I think Greg has successfully responded to a sophomoric critique of Sola Scriptura while ignoring more substantive critiques. But that makes the task easier as well…Perhaps Frank Beckwith could remind us of the good objections to Sola Scriptura rather than the dumb ones.
Posted by: Locke | July 13, 2009 at 01:20 PM
Sola Scriptura is not an argument. It's a boast.
Posted by: BillyHW | July 13, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Locke, I think you may have missed the point. Not to undermine your point (which, is a valid one to make in one regard), but the issue greg is addressing is infact a very small issue of a misunderstanding of Sola-Scriptura, even if he did expand his point a bit. What you are pointing towards is an actual critical examination of the truthiness of the Bible as the final authority, in light of other authorities. This is course, is the actual issue where legitemate challenges can be raised (wether or not sola scriptura is actually reliable). Actually critical examination, case by case, as to wether or not the Bible can be seen as the final authority.
Its not that hes ignoring the substantive critiques. That would require a 40 hour + video. And I dont even think thats Greg's area of speciality. Furthermore in light of the blog post, the video is clearly not intended to answer the assertions you have raised. Dont take that as me trying to be dismissive!
Posted by: Technologies Weak & Physical | July 13, 2009 at 02:29 PM
Edit: "This is course" = This of course
jehehe
Posted by: Technologies Weak & Physical | July 13, 2009 at 02:30 PM
Technologies,
You are right that Greg is not intending to give a full defense of Sola Scriptura in this video. However, I have heard Greg speak on this issue and noticed that he has repeatedly retreated into collapsing the discussion into an issue of burden of proof. That is perfectly acceptable, of course, but it must be recognized that that maneuver is actually a retreat from defending the stronger claim that Christians ought to believe that Scripture alone is the inerrant authority. We may distinguish these four claims:
(1) Supposing no non-Scriptural authority has been shown to be inerrant, Christians ought to believe that Scripture is inerrant and ought to refrain from believing that another authority is inerrant.
(2) Supposing no non-Scriptural authority has been shown to be inerrant, Christians ought to believe that Scripture is inerrant and ought to believe that no other authority is inerrant.
(3) No non-Scriptural authority is inerrant.
(4) Scripture is an inerrant authority and no non-Scriptural authority is inerrant.
Notice that Sola Scriptura is usually taken to mean something quite strong, as in (3) and (4) above. However, when discussing Sola Scriptura, Greg concerns himself almost exclusively with (1), the weakest claim among the set. I suppose he can concern himself with what he pleases, but it should be noted that (1) is weak enough that the Pope himself could agree! Furthermore, my bet is that most Protestants believe something more like (3) or (4) with regard to Sola Scriptura, and I would be interested in hearing more in defense of these stronger theses.
As I said, I think Greg effectively dismantled the objection that Sola Scriptura is self-refuting. However, I think this is really a poor objection to begin with and so its refutation isn’t all that impressive or interesting. It would be far more interesting if STR engaged the best objections to views they hold, as opposed to poor objections that are easily dispensed with. Perhaps they do this because these poor objections are what Christians usually run into. Fine. But an unfortunate consequence of this kind of selective analysis is that Protestants are not exposed to better objections and get a false sense of confidence in their position over that of the Catholics. Unfortunately, I think the fault for this false sense of confidence resides mostly at the feet of apologists.
Posted by: Locke | July 13, 2009 at 03:16 PM
Thanks for your comments Locke.
I would like to see more substantive claims against sola Scriptura, but it has to be properly understood in the first place. It is a very commonly misunderstood, and hence 'straw manned' subject. Frank Beckwith could, I'm sure thrash lil' ol' me on the subject, as probably could you. But, I do know this- the Magisterium fails to beget unity in the church body- a common claim against sola scriptura (specifically, that the multiple denominations of protestants holding to SS are not unified, and hold to different opinions on multiple subjects in spite of one authority- the Bible). Look at the last election. Huge numbers of Catholics voted against their Mother Church and voted for the current president, whose stance on abortion (etc) is against the Magisterium. In fact millions of Catholics worldwide fail to join in unity with the Mother Church- (birth control, abortion) its not that they don't know the position(s), its that they follow their hearts- in disobedience to authority. Man fails to be obedient to the Bible as well. Whatever authority is appealed to, you have to deal with people and their fallen nature. You certainly can't appeal to the Magisterium for unity in the church body!
Posted by: Garret G | July 13, 2009 at 03:31 PM
"However, I think this is really a poor objection to begin with"
Absolutely, and I think you were right to say at the same time this may be as a result of frequent foolish arguments against SS from a 'layperson'... not that I enjoy using that term.. But in any case, now that you have expanded from your original post, I see what you are saying more clearly and I dont think we are in any disagreement from the extended issue of SS. It is infact as you say, most benificial to persue (3) and (4), notwithstanding the purpose of this video.
Posted by: Technologies Weak & Physical | July 13, 2009 at 03:54 PM
"in disobedience to authority (Magisterium). Man fails to be obedient to the Bible as well. Whatever authority is appealed to, you have to deal with people and their fallen nature. You certainly can't appeal to the Magisterium for unity in the church body!"
I don't think that disproves the Magisterium, or suggests it has less authority. The Magisterium, just like the Bible, fails to unite humanity because of our shared human nature, as you said (a concept made famous by one theologian within the Magisterum, namely St. Augustine...look at Orthodoxy's take on human nature). How many Bible believing Christians also went against the Bible, and voted for the most pro-abortion candidate (ever)?
I think the argument is that the Magisterium offers doctrinal unity, whereas the various denominations of Protestantism can hold varying views on several issues based upon their reading of the Bible (Look, for instance, at Bishop Jefferts-Schori's claim that individual salvation is a heresy).
(Of course, mainline Protestantism stopped being Christian a while ago...if you don't want to claim them, I would understand :-) )
Posted by: Terry | July 13, 2009 at 08:35 PM
Perhaps our (assuming) Catholic apologists can enlighten me.
If we accept that there are certain criteria that help us determine why we should trust something as inerrant authority concerning a Creator-God, then it is important to apply this criteria equally to anyone or anything that makes that claim.
If we accept that scripture meets this criteria, then it is an inerrant authority about our Creator and what He wants of us. If we want to live in harmony with this Creator, then it makes sense to follow those teachings.
If other things or people also make claims of inerrant authority, then it must also meet these criteria AND agree with what is already recognized as authority, in this case scripture. Unless of course God is schizophrenic but that doesn't sound like the God of order that made the universe.
Now it is possible that these other claims of authority may disagree with Scripture. But that means either a) the other authority is incorrect b) the other authority is correct and scripture is not an inerrant authority c) neither are authorities d) the criteria we use to determine authorities need to be reexamined.
The problem is not mere agnosticism of other claims of authority. It is simply that we have to evaluate the reliability of each claim of authority both independently and in conjunction with other claims of authority.
Understanding all of this, doesn't it make sense for evangelicals to reject the claims of other authorities if we feel there are good reasons to believe scripture has authority and that other groups or things like the Book of Mormon or the Catholic Magesterium contradict recognized authority?
If we trust that scripture is authoritative and recognize that the Catholic church's teaching on Mary for example, contradicts scripture, then doesn't it make sense that we reject the Catholic Magesterium's claim of authority?
In deed then, then we would be practising SS.
Terry may point to the in-house debates among Evangelical Christians but this pales in comparison to our differences in essentials with Catholics - one of them is our source of authority.
The Catholic Church can point to unity as parts of its claim of authority but this is problematic. As someone who works closely with Catholics, I am always surprised how their theology so easily differs as they point to the very same Catholic authority: ever talk to Charismatic Catholics as opposed to Latin Mass ones? How about Catholics for Free Choice?
Doctrinal unity is great for organizational strength but does not prove that the doctrine you unify around is true. The point is, we can argue SS all we want but if you accept scripture is an inerrant authority then if you want to prove that other things are equal authorities, then you need to prove that those authorities don't contradict scripture.
Posted by: Canbuhay | July 14, 2009 at 01:22 AM
Inerrant authority=literally true? Every single word?
Prove that God doesn't have a body (of some sort) from the Bible alone.
Posted by: James | July 14, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I like Greg's argument and I find it very persuasive, but by ruling out a Magisterium, is Greg merely moving one step backwards, and merely replacing it with himself? That is, is he claiming that a Magisterium is an illegitimate authority outside the Bible, whilst personal interpretation is legitimate authority? (I think Greg's got too much integrity to do that, but I want to follow it though!)
Greg's booklet, 'Never Read a Bible Verse', is great, but do you think his defense of sola scriptura, here, somehow relies too heavily on scripture's perspicacity, the powers of anyone to interpret scripture themselves untutored, and so might undermine the argument in that booklet?
That is, on his argument, isn't it just as legitimate for me to take verses out of context if I want, as there's no authority apart from scripture, and because there's nothing explicit in scripture telling me not to take verses out of context either, is there?
So, why should I take Greg Koukl as a legitimate authority about not decontexualising scripture verses?
If Greg can have his own interpretation of scripture if any form of Magisterium is illegitimate, then what's wrong with my interpretation if, every day, I let my Bible fall open, and the verse my finger lands on is God's message for me today?
Am I right in thinking that, instead of setting himself up as an authority, what's actually happened is that Greg's slipped in his own tradition - his own 'Magisterium' (which advocates sola scriptura) - but is just not acknowledging or adverting to it?
Greg is a wise teacher, and I can't express how much I have benefitted greatly from his teaching and Stand to Reason, but that's because I'm not an expert, and the Bible's not easy to understand without authoritative teaching.
I'm a Catholic, and I trust our Magisterium based on what it teaches about the nature of the Church and scripture, but I also trust Greg, because his integrity, honesty, great powers of reasoning, and fairness in discussion, are indeed signs of the Holy Spirit working mightily in STR.
Thanks, Greg, for all you do.
Posted by: James Findlayson | July 14, 2009 at 10:09 AM
"and because there's nothing explicit in scripture telling me not to take verses out of context either, is there?"
You by chosing to read scripture in a way that its atleast somewhat obviously not presented, have also chosen to place yourself above scripture. It would be a very obvious where your final authority lay, given your inclinations to read the text in a manner that is contradictory to the text. (I should note here im speaking to blatant misreadings, which is what i think you wre suggesting, not genuine misunderstandings.)
Posted by: Corrupted Geometry | July 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Hi, Corrupted Geometry. Thanks for replying.
I'm no expert, so I'm finding it difficult distinguishing between 'blatant misreadings' and 'genuine misunderstandings'. Can you help, please?
Are you saying 'blatant misreadings' are in some way malicious or wilfully misleading? If so, that's a harsh moral judgment about the integrity of someone who might actually be innocent, isn't it? Surely, that would require the ability to read people's minds, and I'm not sure, but I don't think that's possible, is it?
But, on the topic, I might be wrong, but I didn't think I was saying that was my view. I thought I was just posing a hypothetical view which could be held?
Was not my issue with the fact that if Greg can claim direct authority, then why can't anyone else - and therefore choose to interpret scripture any way they like, too?
They might be misreadings, wiful or otherwise, but if there's no authority outside scripture, then can't anyone make whatever interpretation they like of it?
By using the phrase 'blatant misreadings', aren't you actually drawing on a tradition?
That is, for them to be 'blatant misreadings', there must be an authoritative, objective reading to which you're appealing, or it couldn't be classed as a misreading, could it?
As soon as we say anyone's interpretation is wrong, to what, or who, are we appealing? If it's the views of a respected bible commentator or theologian, then it's the equivalent of, or the same as a Magisterium, isn't it?
If, however, it's to ourselves, then what authority have we to claim another's use or interpretation of scripture is wrong - unless we merely posit that we're an authority, and they're not?
If the appeal's directly to scripture as authoritative, and scripture's so clear, then why so many misreadings, misunderstandings and misinterpretations?
If it's not that clear, don't we need authorities to help us understand better and which we trust as being authentic interpreters? If so, call it a Theologian, Bible Scholar, or Magisterium, but they're all seen as authoritative within their own spheres, aren't they?
Posted by: James Findlayson | July 14, 2009 at 06:16 PM
The fact that SS is not found in Scripture doesn't refute it absolutely, but it should be a strong clue that the 16th century doctrine is not true. If SS is true, then it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Why then is it missing from what is, by its own definition, the source of Christianity's fundamentals? (Why is also missing from Christian belief until the Reformation?)
We trusted the Church as infallible before the canon existed and before the NT was written. If we can't have infallible trust in the Catholic Church, then we cannot have infallible trust in the Scriptures since the Catholic Church told us which books are inspired and which aren't.
Posted by: Tim Troutman | July 16, 2009 at 05:12 PM
"Unless of course God is schizophrenic but that doesn't sound like the God of order that made the universe."
Based on what source of information do you say God is not schizophrenic? Popular theology? Hallmark greeting cards?
"Prove that God doesn't have a body (of some sort) from the Bible alone."
John 4:24 - Jesus tells the woman at the well that "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." The context also confirms the meaning that God is not localized spatially, but transcends spatial and temporal constraints as an incorporeal Being - in essence, a Spirit.
"If SS is true, then it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity."
What do you mean by 'fundamental doctrine'?
"Call it a Theologian, Bible Scholar, or Magisterium, but they're all seen as authoritative within their own spheres, aren't they?"
Yes James - but the authority ascribed to these personages within each group varies distinctly. They are not interchangeable. We do not hold a theologian nor pastor's word to be inerrant, nor on equal footing with the Bible. Man's words do not obligate us spiritually, and they have no explicit authority as does the Magisterium to pronounce official, canonical doctrine.
While I get your concern about abandoning every man to his own interpretation, the solution is not to bind every man to one monolithic institutional authority. Each man is subject to God personally, and the community of believers hold one another accountable to God according to God's written word. The group together is led by the Lord Jesus to keep God's will and follow the teachings of Scripture, and each man is led by the Spirit in his own conscience to keep God's will. This maintains the proper regard of Biblical authority (Sola Scriptura), while also providing moral accountability and ordained teaching according to Corinthians.
Posted by: Sage S. | July 16, 2009 at 11:18 PM
And how about 1 Kings 8:27 - But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!
Posted by: Amy | July 17, 2009 at 09:10 AM
Sola Scriptura is true only if the written word of God is now the sole source of revelation for the whole body of Christ. Meaning that no other revelations are to be added to the hearing of the book of Revelation. That the two partial gifts of the Spirit, gifts of prophecy and word of knowledge have been done away by the perfect prophecy and perfect word of knowledge of the now closed canon of the perfect written word of God. And as a result that the kinds of tongues have ceased.
Posted by: Paul S | July 18, 2009 at 11:18 AM