Post by AmericanPride on May 26, 2008 5:24:35 GMT -8
1. Defining Sola Scriptura
The term "sola scriptura" ("by scripture alone") refers to the idea that the Bible, in itself, is self-sufficient to be the initial and final authority on the "is" of Christianity. The term, in whatever variation, is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, though it may be argued that it's broadly referred to by several passages. It will be referred to as "SS" throughout this essay.
2. The Evolution of Sola Scriptura and Biblical Canon
The idea of sola scriptura (and the term) did not appear until the Reformation. It is one of five basic premises that developed during
this time that form the basis of [most] Protestant belief. It asserts that the Bible alone is sufficient to encompass and define the entirety of the Christian faith. Martin Luther asserted this idea because he had rejected the legitimacy of traditions, councils, and papal bulls. It was during this period that the Biblical canon had been first formalized anywhere in the Christian community -- while Luther insisted on removing several books which had been used since the 2nd and 3rd century (namely Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation), the Council of Trent (1545 -1564) established the Bible that is still in print today (the Council stated that it affirmed the decision of the Council of Florence in 1451). The first mainstream "bible", in reality simply a collection of writings in popular circulation,
appeared around 200. This collection consisted of the 27 books currently in the NT. This was not considered canon until the 4th
century; however, a number of small, separate churches had disputed a number of the books, or rejected the canon outright. The books which Luther disputed were also in dispute at this time (Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation). Particularly, Luther did not consider James to be divinely inspired and worthy of inclusion. In the end, he included the books (but attached them to the end of the NT) because his followers compelled him to do so, while he removed the
deuterocanonical books and labeled them as Apocrypha. He did so not because of any historical research into their canon and origins, but because of his theological opposition to what they said. This is made clear by his personal statements which he included as a preface in his edition of the Bible.The Bible that Luther created is the one in use today by Protestants.
The development of the OT follows much the same course as the NT. The exclusion of the deuterocanonical books is often justified on the basis that it follows the Hebrew bible. But this not entirely the case. The Protestant OT makes several changes to the Hebrew canon; all of which rely on the Greek translation, not the Hebrew, of the OT. The case therefore cannot be made that Protestants consider the OT to be justified as a model of the Hebrew version, as the changes made by them reflect other motivations in play. The books excluded by the Protestant version, however, are referred to in the NT. It follows then that during the course of events described in the NT, the excluded books were not yet considered uncanonical by Jews. In fact, the Jewish canon was not closed until the end of the first century, many years after the NT events had occurred. This is evident by the existence of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible; created sometime between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, it included the deuterocanonical books which were to be later excluded in the 1st century AD by Jewish scholars. When it was created, it was considered divinely inspired by the Jewish leaders of the time, but by the time it fell out of favor, it was rejected out of hand.
a. Is Sola Scripture Biblical?
At first appearance, it seems that the doctrine of SS is Biblical. Men that "proclaim" so-called gospels that are "contrary" to what is "received" will be "accursed" (Galatians 1.6-10). Paul states that the "sacred writings...instruct [men] for... salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3.15-17). But this only tells a portion of the story. Paul also states that men should "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions" they had been given "by word of mouth or by... letter" (2 The 2:15). It is also stated that what is "heard" should be passed down by "faithful people who will be able to teach others as well" (2 Tim 2:2). Men are commended for "[maintaining] the traditions" as they were handed to them (1 Corinthians 11.2:). Indeed, men should avoid the "idleness" of others that do not live "according to the tradition" they received (2 Thessalonians 3.6). It is clear that both the apostles and those who came after them (until he Reformation) relied on the teachings of the church's leadership as much as the word of Scripture. Most condemning is that the Bible provides no list of which writings should be considered Scripture in the first place and so any determination of canon is inherently extra-Biblical.
b. Is Sola Scriptura historical?
It is clear that SS is not historical. No mention of it is made by early church documents or by leaders in the years to follow the Bible's events, nor is it even considered until the Reformation. The historical development of the Bible, with its array of disputes and challenges, makes it clear that Christians relied as much on the traditions of the community as they did on Scripture. Indeed it was that mass literacy did not exist, and thus the lay person accepted the teachings of church leaders as much as he did Scripture when it was read to him.
c. Is Sola Scriptura logical?
There are several problems with the idea of Sola Scriptura, given Biblical passages and the historical development of the Bible.
The most glaring question is whether or not Luther had the authority to determine which books were divinely inspired and which were not. If it is the case that he did so, then we must also consider that other men like him hold the same authority, and this casts doubt upon the entirety of Scripture, Now it may be said that Luther was divinely inspired, yet Luther did not compose the Bible -- he edited what others created before him. If it is the case that Luther was divinely inspired, then it also follows that so were the men before him that made similar efforts at composing the Bible; yet this generates a contradiction in which Luther reverses the work of previously inspired men.
The second problem is at what point did the Bible assume the role of sole authority, if as illustrated, during its development it consisted of various books; some which are not included today, and others, while taken for granted today, were disputed for centuries. If Scripture was true before the formalization of the Bible, then which scripture should be considered legitimate and which should not be? Who has the authority to make that determination? I do not think it is practical (or biblical) that any one man has that power; indeed, it clearly states that men should keep to the traditions and letters they were given. The development of the OT speaks to this. While Protestant justification states that the exclusion of the deuterocanonical books is based upon Jewish canon, this does not accommodate that the Jewish canon was not determined until after the events of the NT had passed. When the Septuagint was created there was not established canon for Jewish books; and what is now considered the "Apocrypha" were included. This raises several questions: which Jewish leaders, if any, were divinely inspired and thus had sanction to determine which books were canon and which were not? If the Septuagint was in use by early Christians, does the Jewish ruling that certain books are no longer canon apply to the Christian community?
The general problems I mentioned above speak against the idea of SS. First -- who holds the authority to make canonical determinations? The Bible clearly states that traditions and letters (which would form the basis of the Bible) of the apostles were to be upheld; thus, what is inherited through the Christian community is legitimate. It does not follow from this that Luther held the authority to determine canon; as it was, the councils, in tradition of the Council of Jerusalem, came together to settle disputes and formalize practice. Second -- that the Bible has always been the sole authority on Christianity is not true. The Bible was not commissioned (as we know it) until the 16th century. For a full one thousand-five hundred years, the canon of the Bible was disputed and re-arranged; what was kept was retained because of traditional use.
From these observations, it is clear that the Bible, while a primary source for Christianity, is a component of the faith; not its sole authority. The twin component to Scripture is tradition; that which has been handed down by the apostles through the church. Should there be a conflict between the two, it is not a question of which one takes precedence, but which one is accurate on the matter. The difference for Christians today (as opposed to early Christians) is that canon is clearly established; before the Council of Trent, this was not the case, and disputes had existed for centuries on which books on the Bible were canon. Thus, it can be reasoned that tradition, therefore, is wrong if it conflicts with Scripture, but only if after the Council of Trent. Yet, it would not be considered tradition in the first place if it was in contradiction; as it was, both originated from the same source. Therefore, Scripture is as much a part of tradition as those other components of faith which Christians practice; Scripture was shaped by tradition as much as it shaped it. Sola Scriptura, in this case, does not stand up to the Biblical and historical record.
The term "sola scriptura" ("by scripture alone") refers to the idea that the Bible, in itself, is self-sufficient to be the initial and final authority on the "is" of Christianity. The term, in whatever variation, is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, though it may be argued that it's broadly referred to by several passages. It will be referred to as "SS" throughout this essay.
2. The Evolution of Sola Scriptura and Biblical Canon
The idea of sola scriptura (and the term) did not appear until the Reformation. It is one of five basic premises that developed during
this time that form the basis of [most] Protestant belief
appeared around 200. This collection consisted of the 27 books currently in the NT. This was not considered canon until the 4th
century; however, a number of small, separate churches had disputed a number of the books, or rejected the canon outright. The books which Luther disputed were also in dispute at this time (Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation). Particularly, Luther did not consider James to be divinely inspired and worthy of inclusion. In the end, he included the books (but attached them to the end of the NT) because his followers compelled him to do so, while he removed the
deuterocanonical books and labeled them as Apocrypha. He did so not because of any historical research into their canon and origins, but because of his theological opposition to what they said. This is made clear by his personal statements which he included as a preface in his edition of the Bible.The Bible that Luther created is the one in use today by Protestants.
The development of the OT follows much the same course as the NT. The exclusion of the deuterocanonical books is often justified on the basis that it follows the Hebrew bible. But this not entirely the case. The Protestant OT makes several changes to the Hebrew canon; all of which rely on the Greek translation, not the Hebrew, of the OT. The case therefore cannot be made that Protestants consider the OT to be justified as a model of the Hebrew version, as the changes made by them reflect other motivations in play. The books excluded by the Protestant version, however, are referred to in the NT. It follows then that during the course of events described in the NT, the excluded books were not yet considered uncanonical by Jews. In fact, the Jewish canon was not closed until the end of the first century, many years after the NT events had occurred. This is evident by the existence of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible; created sometime between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, it included the deuterocanonical books which were to be later excluded in the 1st century AD by Jewish scholars. When it was created, it was considered divinely inspired by the Jewish leaders of the time, but by the time it fell out of favor, it was rejected out of hand.
a. Is Sola Scripture Biblical?
At first appearance, it seems that the doctrine of SS is Biblical. Men that "proclaim" so-called gospels that are "contrary" to what is "received" will be "accursed" (Galatians 1.6-10). Paul states that the "sacred writings...instruct [men] for... salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3.15-17). But this only tells a portion of the story. Paul also states that men should "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions" they had been given "by word of mouth or by... letter" (2 The 2:15). It is also stated that what is "heard" should be passed down by "faithful people who will be able to teach others as well" (2 Tim 2:2). Men are commended for "[maintaining] the traditions" as they were handed to them (1 Corinthians 11.2:). Indeed, men should avoid the "idleness" of others that do not live "according to the tradition" they received (2 Thessalonians 3.6). It is clear that both the apostles and those who came after them (until he Reformation) relied on the teachings of the church's leadership as much as the word of Scripture. Most condemning is that the Bible provides no list of which writings should be considered Scripture in the first place and so any determination of canon is inherently extra-Biblical.
b. Is Sola Scriptura historical?
It is clear that SS is not historical. No mention of it is made by early church documents or by leaders in the years to follow the Bible's events, nor is it even considered until the Reformation. The historical development of the Bible, with its array of disputes and challenges, makes it clear that Christians relied as much on the traditions of the community as they did on Scripture. Indeed it was that mass literacy did not exist, and thus the lay person accepted the teachings of church leaders as much as he did Scripture when it was read to him.
c. Is Sola Scriptura logical?
There are several problems with the idea of Sola Scriptura, given Biblical passages and the historical development of the Bible.
The most glaring question is whether or not Luther had the authority to determine which books were divinely inspired and which were not. If it is the case that he did so, then we must also consider that other men like him hold the same authority, and this casts doubt upon the entirety of Scripture, Now it may be said that Luther was divinely inspired, yet Luther did not compose the Bible -- he edited what others created before him. If it is the case that Luther was divinely inspired, then it also follows that so were the men before him that made similar efforts at composing the Bible; yet this generates a contradiction in which Luther reverses the work of previously inspired men.
The second problem is at what point did the Bible assume the role of sole authority, if as illustrated, during its development it consisted of various books; some which are not included today, and others, while taken for granted today, were disputed for centuries. If Scripture was true before the formalization of the Bible, then which scripture should be considered legitimate and which should not be? Who has the authority to make that determination? I do not think it is practical (or biblical) that any one man has that power; indeed, it clearly states that men should keep to the traditions and letters they were given. The development of the OT speaks to this. While Protestant justification states that the exclusion of the deuterocanonical books is based upon Jewish canon, this does not accommodate that the Jewish canon was not determined until after the events of the NT had passed. When the Septuagint was created there was not established canon for Jewish books; and what is now considered the "Apocrypha" were included. This raises several questions: which Jewish leaders, if any, were divinely inspired and thus had sanction to determine which books were canon and which were not? If the Septuagint was in use by early Christians, does the Jewish ruling that certain books are no longer canon apply to the Christian community?
The general problems I mentioned above speak against the idea of SS. First -- who holds the authority to make canonical determinations? The Bible clearly states that traditions and letters (which would form the basis of the Bible) of the apostles were to be upheld; thus, what is inherited through the Christian community is legitimate. It does not follow from this that Luther held the authority to determine canon; as it was, the councils, in tradition of the Council of Jerusalem, came together to settle disputes and formalize practice. Second -- that the Bible has always been the sole authority on Christianity is not true. The Bible was not commissioned (as we know it) until the 16th century. For a full one thousand-five hundred years, the canon of the Bible was disputed and re-arranged; what was kept was retained because of traditional use.
From these observations, it is clear that the Bible, while a primary source for Christianity, is a component of the faith; not its sole authority. The twin component to Scripture is tradition; that which has been handed down by the apostles through the church. Should there be a conflict between the two, it is not a question of which one takes precedence, but which one is accurate on the matter. The difference for Christians today (as opposed to early Christians) is that canon is clearly established; before the Council of Trent, this was not the case, and disputes had existed for centuries on which books on the Bible were canon. Thus, it can be reasoned that tradition, therefore, is wrong if it conflicts with Scripture, but only if after the Council of Trent. Yet, it would not be considered tradition in the first place if it was in contradiction; as it was, both originated from the same source. Therefore, Scripture is as much a part of tradition as those other components of faith which Christians practice; Scripture was shaped by tradition as much as it shaped it. Sola Scriptura, in this case, does not stand up to the Biblical and historical record.