I'm posting (with permission) something Dr. Welty recently said in email correspondence:
Even if we cannot make an explicit, deductive case for sola scriptura, from the Scriptures themselves, we can make an inductive case. Again and again, in Scripture appeal is made to Scripture to correct oral tradition and oral claims. But we never see the reverse: we never see oral tradition correcting the deliverances of Scripture. So the inductive case for sola scriptura is pretty clear: if you want to know what Scripture commends to us as the ultimate standard of doctrine, it is Scripture itself. It's not like Scripture leaves us guessing here. How is this any worse than our indirect, inductive cases for other doctrines?
If you would, having access to Dr. Welty, would you pass along this request?
ReplyDeleteAsk him to exegete: Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
I am most interested in what he would say about part one of that verse?
What you have passed over here for us to read, it seems to me, he has dealt with part two nicely.
In any event, if you do not have Eternal Life neither God or His Word of Grace will make a difference in the outcome of your passing from this life to the next one that awaits us all with one result or the other!
"we never see oral tradition correcting the deliverances of Scripture."
ReplyDeleteDo Roman Catholics and the Magisterium agree with Dr. Welty's observation?
I hope "Dr" Welty did't actually make this argument. *IF* an explicit case for SS cannot be made from Scripture, then one turns SS into a self-refuting principle *BY DEFINITION*.
ReplyDeleteI recently wrote a blog article on why I believe Sola Scriptura isn't actually taught in the Bible:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/04/sola-scriptura-is-unscriptural.html
and why it's Self-Refuting:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/02/sola-scriptura-is-self-refuting.html
NICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"I hope "Dr" Welty did't actually make this argument. *IF* an explicit case for SS cannot be made from Scripture, then one turns SS into a self-refuting principle *BY DEFINITION*."
Well, that's pretty stupid. To begin with, it hardly needs to be "explicit." An implicit case would suffice.
Moreover, you conveniently ignore his distinction between deductive and inductive. Try not to be such a dullard.
Great observation by Dr. Welty. The tired argument that it's circular reasoning fails when it is understood that the veracity of the scriptures is revealed to individuals through the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDelete1) We do not deductively argue that the scriptures are true because the scriptures say they are true.
2) If the scriptures are true then it is reasonable that they would say so.
3) If the scriptures never commented on the veracity of their compiled whole, then that would never disprove their veracity.
4) Non-apostate Christians (as though a Christians could be apostate) agree that the scriptures are true.
5) We do not deductively argue that the scriptures are true because we agree that they are true.
6) If the scriptures are true, then it is reasonable that we would agree that they are true.
7) If the scriptures are true, then they are true because the source of Truth, God, made them so.
8) God causes truth to resonate in those who belong to him by virtue of the indwelling Holy Spirit such that we know the veracity of the scriptures. If one does not have the Holy Spirit, then they won't have this transcendent sense.
9) Since we know the scriptures are true, then we can know the particulars of their veracity by what the scriptures themselves say about it.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't need to flood your combox with my argument on why his reasoning is flawed. The link I gave states my position in 1.5 pages (so nobody can claim I wrote 'too much').