I've noticed over the last few years that a lot of issues Catholics and protestants used to debate about have kind of gone by the wayside. They don't get talked about as much. Sola Scriptura is getting all the attention. The primary argument Catholic apologists have against Sola Scriptura is that it's self-refuting.
The reason Catholics think it's self-refuting is because it's not taught in the Bible. If the Bible is the only source of theological truths, but the Bible doesn't teach sola scriptura, then sola scriptura can't be a theological truth.
I have argued elsewhere that Sola Scriptura is taught in the Bible,1 but I want to ignore that so I can come at this objection from a different angle. Actually, I have a few things to say about it, so maybe there'll be more than one angle. For the sake of this post, I want to grant, for the sake of argument, that the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura.
Let's start with what it means to be self-refuting. A self-refuting statement is a statement that, when assumed to be true and taken to its logical conclusion, turns out to be false. For example, the statement that "All sentences over five words long are false" is a self-refuting statement because it's over five words long. If the statement was true, then it would be false. It refutes itself.
If a statement refutes itself, then it's necessarily false. It's not even possible for it to be true. By the law of excluded middle, if a statement is false, then it's negation must be true. Since, for example, the statement that "All statements over five words long are false" is a self-refuting statement, it follows that the statement, "It is not the case that all sentences over five words long are false," is true because that's the negation of the original statement.
Now, consider the conclusion of the argument above I gave about Sola Scriptura. The conclusion was, "Sola Scriptura can't be a theological truth." That's what would follow if Sola Scriptura were self-refuting. But does that mean Sola Scriptura is false? If Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, then yes, we would have to say that it is false.
If Sola Scriptura is false, then the conclusion would have to be that the Bible is not the sole infallible rule of faith. If the Bible is not the sole infallible rule of faith, then there must be other infallible rules of faith besides the Bible. In other words, since Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, it would follow necessarily that there is another infallible source of theological truths besides the Bible.2
Think about that for a minute. We are basically drawing the conclusion that if the Bible does not state that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, then necessarily, there must be another infallible rule of faith besides the Bible. But how does it follow that if the Bible does not claim to be the sole infallible rule of faith that it therefore isn't? That doesn't follow at all. There must be a mistake somewhere in the Catholic apologist's argument.
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that God inspired the Bible in such a way as to be infallible. And let's suppose there is no other infallible source of authority besides the Bible. That is not to say God couldn't inspire a prophet, a teacher, or even the Pope to make an infallible statement. We're just assuming, for the sake of argument, that he doesn't. If that were the case, then wouldn't it also be the case that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith? Wouldn't it be the sole infallible source of authority?
Now suppose that the above scenario is true, and that the Bible happens not to mention that it is the sole infallible source of authority or rule of faith. Well, then you'd have a situation where the Bible was the sole infallible rule of faith even though the Bible didn't say so.
This scenario seems to be perfectly coherent. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing at this point that it's true. I'm only arguing that it's a coherent scenario. It's something that's possible. It's something God could have done. But if Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, then it's not possible for the Bible to be the sole infallible rule of faith or source of authority. So here's my argument in a nut-shell.
1. If Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, then it is not possible for God to inspire the Bible in such a way as to make it infallible without inspiring something else and making it infallible as well.
2. It is possible for God to inspire the Bible in such a way as to make it infallible without inspiring something else and making it infallible as well.
3. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not self-refuting.
If Sola Scriptura is not self-refuting, then where has the Catholic argument gone wrong? It certainly seems, on its face, to be a good argument. Here's the argument again:
If the Bible is the only source of theological truths, but the Bible doesn't teach sola scriptura, then sola scriptura can't be a theological truth.
In other words, if all theological truths are in the Bible, but Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, then Sola Scriptura cannot be a theological truth.
There are a few possibilities of where the problem lies with this argument. It could be that Sola Scriptura is true, but it's not a theological truth. It's just a plain ole ordinary truth. It could also be that not all theological truths are recorded in the Bible.
This second option seems obviously true. What is a theological truth anyway? Isn't it a truth about God or religion? John tells us at the end of his gospel that "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (John 21:25). No doubt Jesus said and did many things that were never written down. Likewise, Paul said, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears" (1 Corinthians 13:9). The Bible does not contain an exhaustive list of truths about God. There are truths about God that nobody knows, not even the Pope. Jesus, talking about the end times, said, "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Matthew 24:36). There is a theological truth about when God is going to act in the last days that not even Jesus knew, and nobody knows today.
So it isn't the case that all theological truths are contained in the Bible. The problem with the Catholic argument may just be that it consists of a misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura even is. Sola Scriptura is not the claim that all truths can be found in the Bible. It's not even the claim that all theological truths can be found in the Bible. Nor is it the claim that the only truths we can know are Biblical truths. After all, I know that Saturn orbits the sun, but the Bible doesn't tell me so.
Sola Scriptura is the claim that the Bible alone is an infallible authority on theological truths. There is nothing self-refuting about that. All that's required for that claim to be true is for God to inspire the Bible in such a way as to guarantee its truth, and for God not to inspire any other source of authority or truths in the same way. That is perfectly possible, and there's not a thing in the world incoherent about it.
What a Catholic could say is that Sola Scriptura cannot be an infallible doctrine unless it is taught in the scriptures. But that is perfectly fine for a protestant. To subscribe to Sola Scriptura, one need only subscribe to the claim that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority. One need not subscribe to the additional claim that it is infallibly true that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority. It is that additional claim that Catholics are banking on in order to show that Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, but that additional claim is not what Sola Scriptura is.
I grant that Sola Scriptura is a theological claim because it's a claim about something God did or did not do. Sola Scriptura is not the claim that you can only know theological truths that are revealed in the Bible. It's possible to know things about God through natural theology. The things you discover that way may not be infallibly true, but they could still be true anyway, and you could still be justified in believing them.
Likewise, we could discover through history, tradition (with a small 't'), or by simply recognizing the voice of our shepherd that the Bible is θεόπνευστος and therefore infallible. If we know of no other source of authority that's equally θεόπνευστος, then Sola Scriptura becomes the default position until we learn of some other infallible source. Sola Scriptura does not need to be taught explicitly in the Bible or infallibly known in order to be true or in order to be known.
What does it even mean for a statement or claim to be infallible? I take it to mean that it's a statement or claim that's guaranteed to be true because it came from an infallible source. After all, a statement is either true or false. Adding "infallible" to it doesn't make it anymore true than it already was. It's the source of the claim that's either fallible or infallible. If a source is infallible, that means the source is guaranteed to only provide true statements. If Sola Scriptura does not come from an infallible source, like the Bible, it could still be true, and it could be known to be true. It doesn't need to be an infallible truth to be true or known.
The same thing applies to the Canon.
NOTES:
1. I had a debate on debate.org with Adrian Urias titled "Sola Scriptura vs Sola Dei Verbum," but unfortunately that web page no longer exists, and the WayBack Machine doesn't appear to have it archived. Adrian, if you're reading this, did you happen to keep a copy of it? EDIT: Oh look! Watson posted a copy of the debate in the comment section. Thank you Watson!
2. It's also possible to negate Sola Scriptura by claiming that there are no infallible sources of authority at all, but that option is not open to Catholics or protestants. If we agree that there is at least one infallible rule of faith, but there's not only one, then by necessity there must be more than one. Even without this qualification, there's an obvious problem with the Catholic argument. It would follow that since Sola Scriptura is self-refuting that either (1) there is no infallible source of authority, or (2) there must be more than one infallible source of authority. But under no circumstances can there be just one infallible source of authority because that's allegedly self-refuting.
8 comments:
Hi Sam, not Adrian, but I have an archive of old debate.org posts and other comments/posts of yours that I backed up awhile back. This is the debate (copy pasted). I'll try to do one comment for each round. If you need a better format I can get that but hopefully this helps. And if you need other old posts I can see if I have them. I have a lot.
Sola Scriptura vs Sola Dei Verbum
philochristos
Pro
For this debate, Pro will defend Sola Scriptura, and Con will defend Sola Dei Verbum. Since we each have a position to defend, the burden of proof will be shared.
Definitions
Sola Sriptura: The position that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians.
Sola Dei Verbum: The position that the word of God is the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians.
These are the simplest definitions for these terms. I purposefully didn't flesh either one of them out in detail since I suspect the meaning and implications of both of them will be part of what we argue over. Con is welcome to correct me if he thinks these definitions are wrong, but I ask him to be succinct in his correction.
Rules
1. Round 1 is for acceptance, definitions, and well-wishes.
2. Round 2 is for opening statements. Con can respond to what I say in my opening.
3. Round 3 is for rebuttals and any new arguments either side wants to introduce.
4. Round 4 is for conclusions and rebuttals, but no new arguments.
5. Voters must vote on the content of the debate, not your own opinion or the arguments you would like to have made.
6. Burden of proof is shared. (I said that already, didn't I?)
7. Fairness and charity are expected from both debaters and all voters. No motive-mongering.
8. Forfeiting the last round is an automatic loss for the whole debate (arguments and conduct). Forfeiting just one round prior to the last round is a conduct point.
9. If anybody vote bombs, St. Nicholas will rise from his grave, and after scaring the bejesus out of you, will brand you a heretic and burn you at the stake. If you vote bomb just to see if that's true, and if St. Nicholas happens to be busy in the great beyond and can't deal with you at the moment, rest assured that the day of reckoning will come.
10. I've made the character limit 6000 instead of the usual 8000 in hopes that it will encourage people to vote and discourage people from forfeiting.
Good luck, Darth_Pious! I expect great things from you!
-
Darth_Pious
Con
Salutations to debate.org! I am Darth Pious, known in some parts of the world as Adrian, and I am honored to have my first engagement with philochristos, a most humble Christian who has graced me with the garden of his turbulence. I accept his challenge.
I don't deny any of his definitions, though as was mentioned, these will need to be fleshed out. I will do my own brief definitions here:
Sola Scriptura is what philochristos has said it was. Let me also explain what I think it is not. It is not the view that it is the only source of knowledge for Christians. I have seen this application in some Christians, but I trust philochristos will not subscribe to this view.
Sola Dei Verbum is what philochristos has said it was, and for those who do not see the difference, it is this: the words of God, or the deposit of faith, includes but is not limited to Sacred Scripture. What else is included? Tradition. This can be defined and argued over later.
With this being said, I accept to the following rules of engagement, and am looking forward to what philochristos has to say. God Bless.
-
Darth_Pious
Con
Pro argues that Sola Scriptura (henceforth SS) has three implications. I don"t deny the first. Pro then ascribes to me an argument about Canon which I never made. I made a similar epistemic argument about knowing inspiration, but knowing what is Canon is a separate issue, & to discuss it is a red herring. His second claim is that while God can reveal something to someone, it doesn"t follow that it is binding & authoritative upon others. I agree. Kinda. This is true of scripture too, is it not? For example, when Jesus tells one of the invalids not to tell others what he had done for him, or when Jesus tells Peter not to worry about what he commanded others, it still remains valid & binding only for that individual, however, it is true teaching nonetheless that such an event occurred. It would be false to say that such an event didn"t occur. Because it"s recorded in scripture (I"ve justified scripture in my previous speech), it"s therefore an infallible proposition. So, it is both a subjective revelation & command yet universal at the same time. Scripture needn"t have any direct relevance to me to give intellectual assent to it, & claim it infallibly true. Even if these two points were granted, they do not make a positive case for SS. His only attempt to do this is in his third.
The doctrine of SS is that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians. Then Pro claims that one implication of this is that 2nd Tim claims scripture is that it is the sole fallible truth. But this doesn"t tell us anything. This is a tautology. So his only attempt to justify SS fails.
I"ve already sketched out some problems with the application of this verse under Pro"s interpretation, & he gave a rebuttal. Pro has clarified what he meant by sufficient. I accept. He means to say that it contains all the propositional information necessary for good works. Then he makes the non-sequitur saying because it is necessary for good deeds, it must therefore contain all the propositions necessary for sound doctrine. Here, I think, a difference is becoming more clear between Pro & myself. He seems to believe that all one needs to know is that which is directly relevant to one"s life. But I"ve disputed this when I discussed his second point. If Jesus revealed it to us, then it should be preserved as literally God"s word, even if it were not addressed to us, as Jesus may have personally addressed Peter or Judas. So long as the content came from God, it must be infallible. Pro seems to believe that it is only infallible if it came from God & it has direct relevance to our lives. There are many counter-examples to this. What relevance do the more dull parts of the Bible have to our lives? Like genealogies, for example. Also, doesn"t this lead to a relativism of revelation? If God can reveal something to an individual, but it is not binding upon others, then it follows that this person could say, "Well, this doctrine may not be true for you, but it is for me." What a brave new world. Further, while SS entails that only the Bible is the sole infallible standard of doctrine, how much of the Bible entails SS? It would not be a very impressive doctrine to say that only a handful of verses is sufficient for SS. This is fatal when applied to 2nd Timothy, because not all of scripture was completed at this time. Therefore, it would follow that Revelation is not necessary for "every good work".
I quote Pro, "What sufficiency entails is that all necessary Christian doctrines are contained in the Scripture." Here I ask, what did Christ ever teach that wasn"t necessary for the Church?
Contra SS, I"ve been disputing his first objection, & to his second, it does in fact need to be in scripture, since all scripture contains all information necessary for doctrine. SS is such a doctrine, according to Pro, & therefore should be found in scripture.
Watson, you have gone above and beyond. Thank you so much! I thought this debate was lost for good, and I've looked for it multiple times. Thank you very much!
No problem! Feel free to ask again.
Watson, I was copying and pasting this debate into a word document so I don't lose it again, and I noticed you left out part of my second round statement. You have it ending with "Con ignored that argument," and the following post is Darth Pius' response. I'm sure I said more than that. Could you please look at your notes again and post the rest of my second round response/rebuttal?
Thanks!
Sorry about that.
Thank you, Watson!
Post a Comment