Principles of sola Scriptura

Some Catholic epologists try to argue that sola Scriptura is self-refuting. Or they may argue that certain versions of sola Scriptura are self-refuting. I’ll probably have more to say about the logic (or lack thereof) of this objection. But let’s approach the issue from a different angle.

1.What’s the rationale for sola Scriptura? Well, let’s start with this question: who or what is the ultimate source and standard of our duties to God and man?

The answer to that question is God. God is naturally the final source and standard of our duties to God and man.

And why is that? Because God is our Maker, Redeemer, and/or Judge.

(I say “and/or” because God is the redeemer of the elect, but the judge of the reprobate.)

God is just and true. Hence, whatever God does is just and true (i.e. true to his character).

We are uniquely obligated to God for our being and wellbeing. We are his creatures. And he endowed us with a specific nature. Our duties are a reflection of our nature.

That relationship constitutes the metaphysical basis of ethics.

2.And the order of being (metaphysics) carries over into the order of knowing (epistemology). Because God is just and true, whatever he does is just and true.

By the same token, whatever he says is just and true. Because God is the ontological source and standard of our duties to God and man, he is also the epistemic source of our duties to God and man.

God is uniquely qualified to tell us what our duties are-both to him and to our fellow man–the way an autoengineer is uniquely qualified to write the owner’s manual for the car he designed.

3.Apropos (2), God’s words are the final source and standard of our duties to God and man. Put another way, divine revelation is the only rule of faith and life.

Here I’m using “rule” as a synonym for the ultimate criterion.

This doesn’t mean we can’t have other sources of information. But they don’t set the standard.

4.This is the principle which underlies sola Scriptura. Inscripturated revelation is a special case of general revelation.

In theory, the mode divine revelation can employ the spoken word or the written word. It can take the form of visionary revelation–although mere imagery is uninformative unless there’s some key to the significance of the imagery.

In theory, mode of divine revelation can also be telepathic. Bypass the audiovisual media if God were to communicate his message directly to the mind of the recipient.

And, at one time or another, God has used all these modalities.

5.The Bible itself bears witness to (1-4).

6.The next question we need to ask is how and where to find God’s words for his people. For we no longer live in the age of public revelation. God no longer speaks to his people through prophets and apostles.

Even if, say, he were to give a foreign missionary a private revelation (e.g. “Don’t go into the jungle tomorrow!”), that isn’t given to or for God’s people collectively.

I’d add that Catholicism accepts this distinction as well. Catholicism also admits that the age of public revelation is over. Even if Jesus appears to Teresa of Avila in a vision, her private revelation isn’t binding on a second party. The faithful aren’t bound to believe or accede to her ostensible private revelation.

7.The Bible lays great emphasis on the necessity of a written record of revelation for the benefit of posterity. And that’s bound up with the nature of a covenant community. The covenant is a document. It supplies a common reference point for different members of the covenant community.

Over the long-haul, oral tradition won’t do. Uninspired memories won’t do.

Inspired written words transcribe inspired spoken words. Unless we have an inspired transcription (or paraphrase) of inspired speech, we no longer have inspired words. Rather, we have somebody’s uninspired memory of who said what.

OT prophets spoke the word of God. But it’s not coincidental that we have written records of their speeches. God didn’t leave it to the vicissitudes of oral tradition to preserve the words of Isaiah for later generations.

Peter and Paul both spoke and wrote the word of God. And we have some of their letters.

But what’s striking is that we also have written records of speeches they made (in Acts). God didn’t leave it to the vicissitudes of oral tradition to preserve their speeches. He inspired Luke to transcribe (or paraphrase) their speeches.

Jesus didn’t write anything down. Yet God inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to record his speeches. To leave us a written record of his speeches.

Of course, God is selective in what he chooses to preserve. It isn’t necessary to have a record of everything an apostle or prophet said. Just representative speeches and writings.

8.We find God’s words by using our God-given faculties. Scripture itself bears witness to our God-given faculties. So there’s nothing unscriptural about using ordinary lines of evidence to find where God has deposited his word.

That’s no more at odds with sola Scripture than using our eyes to read the Bible or accessing our memories to recollect what we read.

Likewise, God, in his providence, as put certain evidence at our disposal. Since the Bible bears witness to the providence of God, there’s nothing unscriptural about sifting the evidence which God has providentially preserved for our benefit.

There's more than could be said, but it's useful to clarify one thing at a time.