Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
Balancing Acts: Navigating the Tension Between Sola Scriptura and Other Sources
-
Balancing Acts: Navigating the Tension Between Sola Scriptura and Other Sources
Take a look at the following argument in favor of Sola Scriptura, or the doctrine that establishes the bible as the only authority for Christian belief:
-
God is the ultimate source of authority.
-
God has revealed his will and teachings through scripture.
-
Scripture is a reliable and trustworthy source of knowledge about God’s will and teachings. (from 1 and 2)
-
Other sources of authority, such as tradition, reason, and experience, are fallible and subject to human error and bias.
-
Therefore, scripture is the only authority for determining God’s will and teachings, as it is the only source of authority that is both from God and reliably communicates his message without the influence of human error or bias. (from 4 and 5)
Even though this argument may seem promising since all of the premises are true, it’s a non-sequitur. The move from “other sources…are fallible” in 4 to “scripture is the only authority” in 5 is not warranted by the premises. It results in a non-sequitur as the only conclusion which follows the strength and domain of the premises is the claim that “the most reliable source of knowledge about God is in scripture” not that it is the only source. It would be more reasonable to assert that scripture is the most reliable source, but the premises do not suggest that it is the only source. This is because the argument above assumes that in order for something to posit authority, it must be infallible. An assumption like this is problematic for a few reasons. Not only does the bible itself recognize the significance of adhering to religious tradition, but it is also an ambiguous text that can be interpreted in many different ways. For this reason, it is imperative to refer to other sources of religious authority to supplement what is written in scripture. In the New Testament (1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thes 2:15), the apostle Paul encourages his audience to adhere to teachings delivered by mouth, which is proof that oral tradition posits enough authority to be followed. He even tells them to maintain the traditions that have been passed to them. By no means do these verses deplete the authority that scripture postulates, but it suggests that other sources of authority should be adhered to. There seems to be plenty of evidence, both scriptural and otherwise, to demonstrate that the Bible is not the only authoritative source in Christianity.
-
-
2 Replies
-
What other sources are there?
-
The argument is premature. It presumes God has said all He wants to say, or even that He CAN say, and intends to stop revealing with the Bible as it has been for two thousand years. However if we deny 4, and allow any human to start adding to scripture, it would seem God’s authority is lost and men make themselves the only authorities. And to a certain extent this is the case anyway, as men interpret scripture according to their biases.
Since God sent messengers in the past it follows He could send messengers today, but Christianity most peculiarly disallows there can be further messengers before Judgment. As the Bible is discussed at this forum and at other places, no mechanism is posited for the authority of the prophets other than the indwelling Holy Spirit moving their minds. If so it would’ve been handy for the Holy Spirit to have continued this, in the industrial age.
Log in to reply.