Sola Scriptura

An essay concerning the inerrancy of Scripture

Introduction

In an attempt to expound on the correlation of the Protestant Reformation proposition known as “sola Scripture” or “Scripture alone” with religious beliefs in general, it became apparent that this must be done primarily outside the context of Reformation literature and dogma. When I began to research Sola Scriptura, I found there to be a lack of documentation concerning the specific origin of this proposition and the other “Cries” or “Solas” of the Reformation. As a result of this deficiency of historical analysis, the principle of “Sola Scriptura” will be analyzed in this brief essay primarily in it essential (as opposed to historical) relation to religious beliefs.

It must be noted however, that even though one is hard pressed to find a fullness of historical data concerning the proposition of “sola Scriptura” in and of itself, it is widely accepted that this proposition was central to the Protestant Reformation. For example, R. C. Sproul, in his book Scripture Alone, states that Phillip Manlanchthon, Martin Luther’s partner in the Reformation, gave “sola Scriptura” the status of the “formal cause of the Reformation.” Although the chief theological issue of the Reformation was justification, the question of authority was at the bottom of almost every controversy raised by the Reformation.[i] In addition to understanding that “sola Scriptura” preceded the Reformation in cause, it must be noted that this principal was and is at the heart of almost every Protestant confession of faith, dating all the way back to The Theses of Berne, a Reformed confession written in 1528.[ii] Near five centuries later, the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) has contained in its first article the statement that “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy…and (is) the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.” [iii]

Therefore, since the origin of this proposition of “Scripture alone” is somewhat ambiguous[iv] and it nevertheless, has deep roots in all of Protestantism, the proposition of “sola Scriptura” or “Scripture alone” will be analyzed in this essay not strictly relating to any one person, work, or creed, but as the proposition itself relates to religious epistemology in general. This task will be done under the guiding statement that pure scripture is unique in that it is the only inerrant source of information, particularly concerning divine revelation.

What I mean by ‘Pure Scripture’

Three primary issues need to be addressed to understand what I mean by saying ‘Pure Scripture’. These are 1) Canonicity, 2) Original Autographs and 3) Authorial Intent. These three issues are straightforward and I hold to them unapologetically; thus, I will not waste space with a formal defense of theses ideas but will merely explain what I mean when I say them. Concerning canonicity, I hold that pure scripture is limited to the unadulterated collection of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments as listed by Athanasius in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.[v] The issue of canonicity is so basic and understood in Protestantism that it is hardly ever addressed, but it is important to clearly define this term when the question is asked “What is scripture?” or even more basic “What do you accept as your sacred literature?”

Concerning the original autographs, I hold that pure scripture is determined by what was contained in the original documents that were “God Breathed” when they were written (2 Tim 3:16-17). This issue is problematic because we have none of the original autographs. The oldest manuscripts we have are only pure if they agree with the originals, but since the originals have either been lost or destroyed, there is no way to be completely certain that what we have is indeed pure. The resolution to this issue is closely related to the divine inspiration of the originals. If God did indeed inspire the scriptures, superintending their composition on both the macro and micro level, it would make sense that he would also ensure that this special revelation would be passed down faithfully.

Concerning authorial intent, I hold that pure scripture is constrained by the authorial intent of both the divine author and the human author in their writhing and superintending of the original autographs. Authorial intent is that which an author intends his audience to learn through their reading or hearing of the words he uses. Pure scripture is the message that the author(s) intended the audience to know by the reading or hearing of the written word. In the scriptures, the human authorial intent and the divine authorial intent will never be in conflict but the latter may be greater in the sense of scope than the former. Where this third issue works itself out is in the debates of hermeneutics and translation. The hermeneutic and philosophy of translation of an interpreter will directly depend on the objective the interpreter holds in these two tasks. If the objective of interpretation is to discover the message intended by the author(s), the interpretation will be more pure than if the objective is otherwise.

Again, I am not offering a defense of these three issues. If anyone wishes to analyze the scriptures form the prospective of higher criticism, there are many better sources to dive into on this issue.

The “Only Inerrant” source?

Pure scripture is the only source of information that is inerrant. The next statement, namely, “concerning divine revelation”, is extremely important in clarifying and qualifying this preceding statement. However, for this section, the issue at hand is not the extent or implication of the inerrancy of the scriptures but the exclusive nature of this category of inerrant sources of information. I hold that pure scripture is the only source of information that is inerrant. This means that other documents, creeds, narratives, philosophies, &c, where they relate to message of the scriptures may be trusted only so far as they align with that message of the scriptures.

Concerning Divine revelation

This section must be addressed now to avoid any confusion through a convolution of the issue. As I said above, this section is very important in fully understanding the meaning of the proceeding statement. After I have addressed this topic briefly I will move to address both of these topics together and show how they relate.

My thesis states, “Pure scripture is the only inerrant source of information concerning divine revelation.” The reason why the last phrase is so important is the fact that there are other souses of information which are in some sense inerrant; for example, mathematics. Nevertheless, there is no source of information other than the scriptures, about God or what he has said, that is inerrant. The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to man; it is God’s self-disclosure of himself to humanity, particularly in the person of Jesus Christ. More simply put, the Scriptures are from God and about God; the scriptures are unique in this way, in that they are divine revelation (they have God as there source) and their purpose is to reveal God to man. Other sources of information may have one of these attributes but only scripture has both of them, at least for this age of the Church.[vi]

It may already be clear from what has been said why this idea, namely that the scriptures are the only inerrant source of information about God, was beneath almost every controversy in the Protestant Reformation and is still hotly debated today. In the tradition of the Reformers, I unapologetically hold that pure scripture is the only source which humans, and in particular, Christians, may go to gain true knowledge concerning matters of faith and practice. Information concerning these matters that does not have scripture as its source must have scripture as its validation, otherwise humanity may neither hold it to be true nor use it as a guide in conduct.

In the time of the Reformation, the authority in question was that of the pope and church councils. Luther did not say that these authorities were worthless (this was known as “solo Scriptura”) but rather that scripture was the means by which the believer must determine whether the pope or the councils were trustworthy. At the Leipzig debate in late June of 1519, Luther declared that, "a simple layman armed with the Scriptures is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.”[vii] Again, Luther’s point of contention is not that the pope or church councils should not be trusted at all, but rather that they should not be trusted as infallible or inerrant.

Today, because of the continuing effects of the enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the postmodernist movement, and many other intellectual reformations, the question of authority does not concern the papacy or a particular church council, but rather authority in itself. In the current prevailing mindset of western culture, authority has made a complete shift from divine revelation to things such as science, personal opinion, or cultural norms. Being in the wake of all these other alternatives, and in the midst of millions of people who are (possibly unknowingly) part of these schools of thought, Christians must stand firm on the foundation of pure scripture as the only trustworthy source of information concerning the things of God. Other sources of information regarding math, science, biology, physics, history, philosophy, &c may be trusted but wherever these categories cross over into the realm of faith and practice, which they inevitably will, scripture alone must be the supreme guiding principal.

Conclusion

I would like to conclude my argument with an admonition. If it is true that pure scripture is unique in that it is the only inerrant source of information, particularly concerning divine revelation it would logically follow that scripture deserves our utmost diligence in the study and application thereof. Christians can believe that scripture is the infallible word of God, but if this belief does not work itself out in matters of faith and practice in their lives, then they are no better that the pagans. In addition, if the scriptures are the only infallible source of knowledge about God, then it would also logically follow that Christians should dedicate themselves to the scriptures in a manner that puts them (the scriptures) highest in the hierarchy of authority in their (the Christian’s) minds. Otherwise, Christians will use other authorities to inform their understanding of scripture instead of using scripture to inform their understanding of these other authorities. If the Bible is the infallible Word of God, all of humanity, and especially Christians, are obligated to treat it as such.

© COPYRIGHT 2008 JOSHUA SHIREY. All Rights Reserved.

---

[i] R. C. Sproul: Scripture Alone p. 15

[ii] Sproul, 18

[iii] http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

[iv] It is no surprise to me that the origin is ambiguous. It indeed should be if the Faithful were and had been holding to this belief regardless of what the Pope or the Reformers were saying at that particular time.

[v] http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

[vi] This internal witness of the Holy Spirit certainly falls into this special category but the reason why it is not listed here is that the way in which Christians are to determine whether or not a certain “feeling” or “inclination” or “revelation” is indeed from God by the Spirit is by testing the content against scripture. This is why John exhorts believers to “Test the spirits” (1 John 4:1-6)

[vii] Roland Bainton: Here I Stand - A Life of Martin Luther pp. 116-117

Against the Flux Theory of Heraclitus

Background

The basic idea that I am attempting to refute in this essay is the idea that everything is in a constant state of change and is at no time static. I do not presume to know all of the intricacies of Heraclitus’ theory, but since he is the first known philosopher to systematize the idea, I will attach his name to the idea. I am not attempting to refute the idea that all things (all of reality in all dimensions and universes) are constantly changing, I am arguing that nothing, absolutely nothing, can constantly change.

Now, I realize that this is an extreme view, I also realize that there are philosophical standpoints that purport an idea of universal ‘sameness’ or ‘unity’, I am not supporting these theories. I believe that some things change; this is readily justifiable through many studies in philosophy. My contention is with the general idea of change (and movement) and how this idea is understood.

As stated above, according to the flux theory, everything is in a constant state of change. In more words, this means that nothing reaches a standstill, or a time where the thing could be said to be not changing. On the surface, this idea seems reasonable but there are many bad implications and insurmountable inconsistencies in this theory. The epistemological implications of this theory are catastrophic: if everything is always changing, then it is impossible to know anything, and even if knowledge were still possible it would be false knowledge and therefore not knowledge at all. Plato, with his introduction of forms, makes it possible to accept the flux theory and to have knowledge. Thus, the flux theory cannot apply to everything (all reality) but just to the physical world and not to the “world of the forms”. However, there are still major problems with this theory of flux being applied to the physical world.

An Important Point

First off, a point must be established, and that is that all change of the various components of the physical universe (the universe composed only of atoms) is nothing more or less than a change in location. All heat change is a change in the speed of the vibration of the molecules. All ageing is a disorientation of the original order of the thing that is ageing. All chemical reactions are a moving of the electrons, neutrons, and protons in various different orientations. I could go on and on but I hope that you already get the idea.

Now, as far as I know, motion can only explain the changes that happen to the physical universe. There are other types of changes (i.e. spiritual) but if these changes affect the physical universe, and I believe there are millions of cases of this happening, then the corresponding change or ‘affect’ in the physical universe can be nothing more or less that a change in location of the things affected. Thus, integrating this idea into the flux theory, we now have ‘everything is in a state of constant motion.’

Of course, it is the case that God could end the existence of certain atoms or objects in the physical universe or he could create and introduce wholly new things into the physical universe. However, these actions could not be said to be changes in or of the physical universe since it is a introduction of new material and not a changing or ‘alteration’ of what is already there.

The Problem

Some of you may have already figured out where I am going. If you paid close attention in the last three paragraphs you might have already pieced together what the problem is. The problem I have found with the flux theory is simple on paper but hard to grasp, yet once it is grasped it is very easy to remember, articulate, and argue against, so I ask you to be patient. The essence of the problem is founded in an apparent paradox: there seems to be only two explanations of how change takes place and both of them are inadequate or even obviously false. If something is always changing and is never static or at a standstill, then the two options are 1) varying segments of time are in reality all infinite in duration or 2) the distance that the parts of the changing objects are traversing is in reality equal to zero.

How did I come to this paradox? The discovery of this paradox came to me several years ago when I was contemplating movement in itself. How and why I was contemplating motion in itself is inconsequential, but it is important to know that the paradox first came in relation to motion alone and not to physical change in general. Motion, according to the simplest definition I could come up with, was ‘an objects change in location’. This definition seemed to be sufficient until I actually tried to put it to work.

I will now try to explain how this mental experiment I conducted. To make the discussion more simple, let the object that we use in this example be and electron, since it is, as far as we know, an indivisible object. It would cause confusion and loss of focus to use a divisible object such as a ball, but you can think of a ball in this example if you want. Let us say that an electron is moving from point A to point B. The first question I asked was “how many places will the electron exist in during its traverse of the distance between the two points?” Now, mathematics, physics, and science tells us that there are an infinite number of locations in between any two point in space. In some respect they are right, for, any distance can always be divided by two (or any other number greater than one) and zero distance will never be reached. There are, perhaps, an infinite number of theoretical measurements in between point A and point B but that dose not necessarily mean (and I will argue cannot mean) that there are an infinite number of places for the electron to exist in as it moves.

Back to the example, if there were an infinite number of places for the electron to exist in and it does exist in each of them for any amount of time as it travels, then the electron would never reach point B. Any number (other than zero) multiplied by infinity equals infinity. However, if the electron spent no time at each of these places, then the electron could not exist at all, because it would not be anywhere at any time. Any number (including infinity) multiplied by zero is zero. Thus, we come to the apparent paradox: either 1) varying segments of time are in reality all infinite in duration or 2) the distance that electron travels is in reality equal to zero. Either every movement of anything from any point A and B happens after an infinite amount of time has elapsed, or all measurements between any point A and B are all illusions and are actually zero.

The Answer

Some may argue that this is where we must stop, that when a paradox is reached we must accept that we will never know the answer, or that we must wait until new discoveries are made. I think that answers can be found, if we are willing to believe some very interesting things. My solution to this paradox is very radical and will seem strange at first, but I believe that it is the only way to explain what is happening when a thing moves.

There are, according to my theory, a limited number of places a thing can be. As a thing ‘moves’ from pint A to point B it only exists in a limited number of places (probably an enormous number, but less than infinity). But here is where it gets weird: there can be no time between when the thing ‘moves’ from one of the limited number of places it can exist (I will call these places ‘cells’) to the next. If there is a time when the thing is ‘in between’ the cells, we are brought back to the essence of the problem to which this theory was formed to remedy. What I am arguing for is an instantaneous change of location from cell 1, to cell 2, to cell 3, etc. In addition, the time it takes for the electron to get from point A to B is spent remaining at rest (existing) for a limited time (probably very short, but longer that zero) in the limited number cells. Any limited number multiplied by a limited number equals a limited number. These cells would be the only absolute locations where any indivisible thing could reside, which means that the indivisible parts of divisible things would reside in different cells at different times while still holding together through molecular attraction or covalent bonds. I can see no other way of explaining motion. I warned you that it would be weird.

Now, of course, I have no idea what these cells look like, how small they are, if they overlap each other, what exactly determines how long things stay in these cells, or if they have independent existence outside the presence of matter. It would take much scientific research to discover the answers to these questions. However, this theory of absolute location (as I have coined it) is the only answer that allows for change of location, for distance to be real, and for our measurement of time to be real. All others lead to absurdities that include infinite restrictions or extensions of space and time respectively.

Conclusion

If the theory of absolute location is the only way to explain motion in the physical universe then it is part of describing any change in the physical universe. This means that everything, although it may be ‘moving’ is in reality always at a state of rest. Things ‘change’ in that they instantaneously change location from cell to cell, but this change cannot be “constant” as Heraclitus purposed. All things must stay static for some amount of time, or else they cannot exist.

© COPYRIGHT 2008 JOSHUA SHIREY. All Rights Reserved.