An Honest Admission: I Don't Get Not Accepting Sola Scriptura!
I have discussed the doctrine of Scripture only two times so far on this blog: later last year in my essay “The Resurrection of Christ and the Authority of Scripture” and much earlier in one of my first articles, “Sola Apostolorum.” The former focused more on the matter of authority in the abstract, primarily addressing the heretical position of biblical minimalism. The latter did enter the murky waters of this subject, especially as evoked in the wording of the title, but primarily addressed what can be called the “problem of canonicity.” The latter I’ve been meaning to rework for some time, as my views have developed since then, while the former I still favor. I want to, in this article, more directly and explicitly address the problems that are evoked by just mentioning the term “sola scriptura,” namely by addressing what I frankly find incredulous about the other position(s) available. I’d like to start by examining exactly what positions one is able to hold in this matter. Primarily, we are dealing with two sources/forms of authority: Scripture and Tradition. With either of these two we are dealing with three stances: infallible, fallible, and unauthoritative. Putting these together, there are nine possible positions one could hold:
Scripture-infallible and Tradition-infallible
Scripture-infallible and Tradition-fallible
Scripture-infallible and Tradition-unauthoritative
Scripture-fallible and Tradition-infallible
Scripture-fallible and Tradition-fallible
Scripture-fallible and Tradition-unauthoritative
Scripture-unauthoritative and Tradition-infallible
Scripture-unauthoritative and Tradition-fallible
Scripture-unauthoritative and Tradition-unauthoritative
Anyone of a Christian persuasion should reject the “Scripture-unauthoritative” positions. Even if we go out of the bounds of orthodoxy I’m not sure that anyone would actually say that Scripture has no authority whatsoever. Progressive and Perennialist Christians would both have to assert that the Bible has some authority, because if the Progressive were instead to name the Qu’ran then they wouldn’t be Christians they’d be Muslims, and for the Perennialists if they outright denied a manifestation of human universal wisdom (the Bible) they wouldn’t be Perenialists.
Within the bounds of orthodoxy, of course, there’s no way to question the authority of Scripture. Going off the Nicene Creed alone, the whole text is colored by the vocabulary of Scripture and makes reference to the authoritative proclamations of Scripture: “the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures” and “Who spake by the Prophets.” We can therefore deny any of the Scripture-unauthoritative positions, leaving us now with six:
Scripture-infallible and Tradition-infallible
Scripture-infallible and Tradition-fallible
Scripture-infallible and Tradition-unauthoritative
Scripture-fallible and Tradition-infallible
Scripture-fallible and Tradition-fallible
Scripture-fallible and Tradition-unauthoritative
This is where we begin to flesh out my sentiment that denying sola scriptura is weird. This is because sola scriptura is not the belief that Scripture is our only authority whatsoever. Rather (and I’ve looked into dozens of articles and posts by Protestant writers) the belief has always been that Scripture is our only infallible authority.1 Anything else, i.e., that which comes from the mouth of man, can be accepted by Christians but must be understood as shaped or regulated by that which has issued from the mouth of God. I explain this at-length in my essay on ecumenical orthodoxy.
Therefore, from the Protestant perspective there are only the Scripture-infallible positions. I’d say from any perspective, who really holds that Scripture is fallible? Again, those Progressive and Perennialist types who are nominally Christian may think so, but they are outside the bounds of orthodoxy, their status as Christian is up to debate. Let’s address the Catholic and Orthodox elephants in the room, could they or do they really say that Scripture is fallible? Of course not! As the Second Vatican Council affirmed: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation” (Dei verbum, 11; cf. CCC 107). Likewise, Fr. Thomas Hopko writes on behalf of the Orthodox Church that “The Bible is called the written Word of God…God has revealed Himself as the true and living God to His People, and that as one aspect of His divine self-revelation God inspired His People to produce scriptures, i.e., writings which constitute the true and genuine expressions of His Truth and His Will for His People and for the whole world.” The word “infallible” doesn’t appear, but it’s close enough, although Met. Philaret of Moscow in his famous Catechism does declare belief in “the infallible testimony of the Word of God” (para. 93).2 It’s clear that all Christian churches that have remained in the bounds of orthodoxy have always and continue to distinguish themselves by their affirmation of Scripture’s infallibility.
Therefore, in terms of orthodox and mainstream Christianity the Scripture-infallible positions are really the only options, leaving us with:
Scripture-infallible and Tradition-infallible
Scripture-infallible and Tradition-fallible
Scripture-infallible and Tradition-unauthoritative
Which means the debate, as it has always tended in the direction of, is over the nature of Tradition. Given the definition of it above, that sola scrpitura is the belief in a sole infallible authority, the debate is over that. Is infallibility derived from two sources or from one? Protestants would say one, Catholics and Orthodox would say two.
This is where I feel apt to clearly express myself: what’s the performative distinction between Scripture-infallible and Tradition-infallible? If that’s what you truly believe (I’ve heard the Orthodox say that Tradition and Scripture are like two rivers issuing from the same source; Catholics seem to be fond of the model that Scripture is the written law and Tradition the oral law), then how’s that different from saying that your Tradition will always agree with what Scripture says? This is why I’ve noticed that all dialogue between Protestants and Catholics or Orthodox must always return to quibbling over “where is this in the Bible.” Why? Because if the Tradition is infallible but Scripture doesn’t agree, then either the Tradition or Scripture is fallible. Why would they disagree if they’re both infallible? This isn’t to say that this proves Tradition is infallible, because one could say that Tradition is infallible and not be a Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant because if Scripture is also infallible then Tradition still needs to be demonstrated as in agreement with Scripture.
This is my real point, which is that all of this quibbling just begs the question. You clearly believe Scripture is infallible, and if Tradition is infallible, is your Tradition true or false? Does your Tradition represent the true infallible Tradition or the false one? Here’s an easy proof: both the Catholic and Orthodox hold to “Scripture-infallible and Tradition-infallible,” yet they hold each other’s Tradition to be fallible. Who has the true infallible Tradition? The Orthodox and Catholic thus bicker over who interprets the Tradition properly:
the filioque: It’s in the Fathers! (Catholic) No, it’s not! (Orthodox)
the Papacy: It’s in the Fathers! (Catholic) No it’s not! (Orthodox)
Essence-energies distinction: It’s in the Fathers! (Orthodox) No it’s not! (Catholic)
It’s the same thing as how Protestants will quibble with each other and the Orthodox or Catholic over the Bible. In other words, I don’t see how there’s any real difference between the two. Yes, I know, they are different, but in practice how so? If Scripture and Tradition together are infallible, issuing from the same source, why would they be composed differently? If there are errors in Tradition, but not in Scripture (which we’ve established is the only proper position), then we come to the Protestant position: Scripture-infallible and Tradition-fallible, wherein we talk about things such as “subordinate standards” and “secondary authorities.” Accordingly, it doesn’t matter if the Papacy is well-attested throughout the Tradition (as the Catholics would argue but the Orthodox and Protestants would dispute) because if both sources are infallible then clearly such an institution would be present in both, and if it isn’t, well that must be a concerning sign, yes? One must give, Tradition, or Scripture, and as I established the latter will not be the one.
It makes little sense to me, then, why one would bother arguing against sola scriptura, because even if you think it’s “solis scriptura et traditione” then both of those parts still must agree in order for the infallible authority of either to be maintained. As Catholic and Orthodox apologists turn more and more to engaging with Protestant polemicists and apologists on the grounds of “what does Scripture say” they prove my point more and more. One way or another, Scripture is infallible. All roads lead to Wittenberg.
Theology for You: “The Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.” Joel Settecase: “Sola scriptura is the doctrine that scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.” Dr. Jack Kilcrease: “By ‘sola Scriptura’ Luther and the subsequent Lutheran tradition did not mean that Scripture was the only theological authority, but rather that it was the ultimate authority in the Church.” Matthew Barrett: “...Scripture is its final inerrant authority, which is what the church has always assumed in proclaiming sola scriptura.” Stephen Nichols: “As part of the communion of saints, we are not isolated from tradition or from the church. Keith Mathison, my colleague, put it succinctly: It’s sola Scriptura (the Bible is the only infallible and final authority) not solo Scriptura (the Bible is the only authority). To affirm sola Scriptura is to understand the Bible’s authority well and to understand it as the Reformers did.” GotQuestions: “When we say, ‘The Bible is our only rule for faith and practice,’ we mean that we hold the Bible, God’s Holy Word, to be our ultimate guide for what we believe (‘faith’) and what we do (‘practice’).” Burk Parsons: “For the Bible is the special revelation of God, and it is our only infallible rule for faith and life.”
I understand the context of that is in the context of the theology of the triune Godhead, but it affirms that such a doctrine is based on and presupposes the existence of an infallible testimony, which is the Word of God, which is Scripture.
That was a great article! Yet I ask for your help in understanding the overall point better. I understand you thusly:
If Tradition were truly infallible, both groups (Catholic, Orthodox) would agree on it. ["it" being which Tradition] Since they don’t, it suggests that either:
a) Tradition is not actually infallible, or
b) The disagreements are a sign that infallibility in Tradition cannot be *demonstrated*.
-> I would say demonstrated easily.
This problem forces the debate back to Scripture, as it is universally accepted as infallible across all orthodox Christian traditions. Thus, when Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant apologists debate issues like the papacy, they inevitably appeal to Scripture to support their positions.
-> Is your point that one must *practically* agree with Sola Scriptura, even if one does not do so in a matter of epistemology or ontology/metaphysics?
Secondly. Even though I do think that Scriptural infallibility is a useful basis for orthodox Christians to argue from, it is not the only one they use. The use of reason is always implied with that. Deductions purely from reason, and from nature [in conjunction with reason,] are also coherent on that framework. Which means philosophical argument - the very least those of applied logics and mathematics - and those from natural science can be used as well; either to put away with some anti-scientific interpretations of the Bible or to argue for a philosophical ground of interpretation to begin with.
Without the addition of "rationalism," by which I mean the usage of reason to discover truths at all and the belief in a teleological world in which everything has a reason or cause, the vector of Scriptural infallibility is not well regulated. Using the Bible alone, one may come to the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox one, but many dogmas must simply be introduced by Church authority and, if that authority was not argued for well enough, serve at most as a theory if using the Bible alone. This may lead to a minimalism where one does not calculate the different positions, but reduces the faith to a basic set of agreed-upon principles, disregarding theological complexity and any depth. Doctrinal development through reason and the guidance of the Church become an impossibility from the outset because one cut off the Bible from "natural truths."
When it comes to praxis, I would argue for a Rationalistic Sola Scriptura from which Church authority can be deduced logically or mathematically in relation to philosophy and theology, or from the Bible in relation to philosophy or theology.
I appreciate the way you’ve laid out this discussion so clearly. I wanted to give some brief thoughts and then share some extensive quotes from St. Dumitru Staniloae’s The Experience of God, Volume 1, from a chapter entitled “Scripture and Tradition” because I think they communicate the relationship between Scripture and Tradition better than I could. I have come to see Scripture and Tradition as inseparably interrelated, in that they are both necessary in a broader process of “living dialogue” between God and the Church, within which salvation is worked out. The use of the term ‘Scripture’ implies an understanding of the meaning of its contents which, I think we can both agree, is hotly contested among the many groups who self-identify as Christian. This is a commonly stated point, but it is brought up so often for good reason: what use is the infallibility of Scripture if we have no infallible means of interpretation? If I know that the Bible is infallible, but I don’t know in any given situation that I am understanding or applying it properly, then where does that leave me? For an improper understanding or use of an infallible text renders its infallibility moot. Thus, the infallibility of both Scripture and Tradition (being Scripture’s living and infallible interpretative framework and mechanism of application to the lives of humans) needs to rest squarely on the authority of the Holy Spirit, if we are to overcome this problem. You might respond that this problem still exists and ask the following question: how can we infallibly identify which “Tradition” is in fact correct? To which I would respond: Tradition must find its roots in the actual life of Christ, who chose, taught, and sent the Apostles, who themselves handed down that teaching through their successors the bishops, so on and so forth. You could still perhaps argue that the historical trajectory of this Tradition through time has been muddied, confused, corrupted, etc. such that a form of pure Tradition has not been passed down without interruption (which, to be clear, I would disagree with), but I can understand this perspective, given the messiness of history. You can point out that Roman Catholics and Orthodox disagree about which Church has the genuine and unbroken Tradition, but their disagreement does not bear upon the facticity of the genuine transmission of Tradition (I.e., either the Orthodox are correct, the Catholics are correct, or the Protestants are correct, or I suppose they could technically all be incorrect). But I think that regardless of the details of this debate, Tradition is in principle necessary for the actual practical use of Scripture as an infallible authority. To be sure, Tradition must be assimilated subjectively by each generation and even each person (in the context of a Church) because it is engaged in and transmitted as a dialogue between persons (man in communion with each other and God). At any rate, enough of my soapboxing! Check out the following excerpts from St. Dumitru’s Experience of God, Volume 1 (in a separate comment as a reply to this one), which might at least give you a better understanding of one of the perspectives on the matter (as it did me):