What Happens After Sola Scriptura?

Excellent! We just got into a debate last night with our family who thinks we seek to reject the Bible. Sometimes there is just no explaining to someone who thinks Emergent forsakes the Bible that no, we don’t! They can’t hear it because they have been told we are evil by their pastors. Ugh! You are a master with words. Good job! I hope people listen to the message you bring.

Blake, I am with you all the way to “we get it wrong all the time”. I love the case you make for changing orientation from Sola to Prima, but then it seems to me that you drop off the edge and make it way too easy for those new to the conversation to dismiss your whole point. Or maybe you really believe we never get it right—in that case neither term matters. You do, however, seem to think Scripture matters and we get some of it right some of the time. I am not trying to be too hard on you, but that one exaggeration (if it really is an exaggeration) may cause some people investigating the pomo/Emergent thing to dump it all, because of that one over-the-top statement. Or I could be all wrong and misinterpreting you! : )

We in the RCC have been doing just fine without sola scriptura for a long time now. I totally don’t get why this is so complicated. You all finally figured out that Scripture requires Context. Tradition.

What blows my mind the most about all this, is that the people who are most likely to screech about sola scriptura are the people most likely to use Calvin, Luther or (even more ironically) Augustine when defending a position on doctrine.

I really don’t see at all why realizing that sola scriptura is an impossibility has anything to do with how seriously anyone takes the Bible. It’s baffling.

Bob—thanks for the feedback.

The issue of “getting it right” (or wrong) is an important one and for me that is where community comes in as an important guide in discerning which interpretations are healthy or not. But I’m not sure we can ever simply say that we got “it” completely right or wrong. I think we get pieces right. When I look at the history of how Scripture has been (mis)used in the past I simply cannot say in good conscience that we’ve got it all together today. Now, I don’t think that is reason to drop Prima as you seem to think I suggest. What I want to argue is that we can fully admit and celebrate our fallibility and propensity to use Scripture in an abusive and oppressive way without abandoning it altogether. Put another way, I think we can affirm Scripture as authoritative and instructive and still maintain a certain degree of epistemological humility. In fact, I think we have to.

I know most of this may sound like I am avoiding your question. But I really do get what you’re saying. And I understand that it is an important problem. I just can’t say in good conscience that we’re not getting part of it wrong all the time. Our history seems to suggest different to me. And again, I do not see that as grounds to abandon this enterprise altogether—only that we approach it with great care and humility.

I think you’re right that whatever Sola Scriptura has become is ending, but I don’t think the reformers, particularly Martin Luther, meant it so suggest we have no authority but Scripture. He was saying, against the abuses of the RCC of the time and its claim that the church (meaning the magisterium, not the laity) interprets scripture, the scripture interprets the church. I think the overemphasis on the limitations of perspective in biblical interpretation need to come to end more urgently than Sola Scriptura does because Luther’s original sense of the term is still valid: the church does not need to interpret scripture; the church needs to allow scripture to interpret it.

It seems to me you’re advocating something remarkably similar to the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Scripture is the primary source of our knowledge of God, but is informed by reason, tradition and experience.

(Blake, I note you’re a United Methodist. Don’t they mention this in their book of discipline?)

Adam—I agree with you. Luther was, without a doubt, being reactionary in his coining of the phrase. And I think what has happened is that we have taken it to an extreme that is not at all useful anymore. That being said, I think I would nuance my language a bit more at the end when you say, “the church does not need to interpret scripture; the church needs to allow scripture to interpret it.” Again, I would agree, but I think our understanding of what it means for ‘scripture to interpret itself’ changes. And I think we have to be very careful in making such a claim because our reading of scripture is always interpretation. I think that is inescapable.

Cameron—You are on to me! I have been heavily influenced by Methodism and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral in this area. In fact, I think there are exciting unexplored possibilities for a postmodern appropriation of Quadrilateral-esque hermeneutic. And I think there are strong similarities between Wesley and Emergents in this area. Thanks for pointing that out.

Blake, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. In response, I think a fair question to ask might be, “Scripture plus what then?” Scripture + personal interpretation?” If so, doesn’t scripture then become whatever one would like it to be … or more likely, whatever one would not like it to be? Also, aren’t your arguments here very similar to those of the Mormon Church (i.e., I seriously doubt whether the Bible is infallible since it was written by pre-modern men); it does seem, regardless of what a previous reader suggested, that you’re talking about much more than simply arguing for the need to place scripture in context? Lastly, I wonder how much of so-called interpretation might actually be more accurately defined as making accuses for one’s own sin? Thanks again, keep striving.

John Warwick Montgomery, lawyer/ theologian, illustrates this truth: “The directions for operating my washing machine, for example, are literally infallible; if I do just what they say, the machine will respond. From such an example, we we must conclude that human beings, though they often err, need not err in all particular instances.

What about “all scripture is God-breathed”? Do you REALLY believe that scripture, i.e. the Word, God in written form is fallible?? Scripture (our love letter from God, representing Him), is, in fact all I need. It is amazing for me to think that any of His Creation is, as you put it, “more complex” and therefore needs something in addition to the Bible!

What humility Blake. As a woman of color, I appreciate the humility that as an “urban, white, American” your interpretation can’t stand alone. White men have been “sola” interpreters of Scripture, and has there been truth taught and realized? Yes, but not the Whole Truth. The voices from all nations, and all peoples add to the meaning of scripture. Thank God, God is larger than us that the whole Truth, cannot and will not be realized till the end. Though the joy in sitting with all voices and all people in community reading Truth and holding Mystery as we grow up together is so good.
Thank you for your post.

Steve—Thanks for the questions. I can’t really speak to the Mormon Church as my knowledge in that area is rudimentary at best. I would say, though, that there are many streams of Christianity that affirm my claim that Scripture is not infallible given it’s human transmission all be they streams that tend to downplay the authority of Scripture more than I am willing to. Your question about making Scripture mean whatever one wants is an important one and that is a problem those of us who admit that Sola Scriptura is no longer tenable must seriously wrestle with. I still think it is better than the alternative, though. For me, this is where community comes in. The community—with the aid of other sources such as reason, experience, and tradition—helps guide, nurture and instill a hermeneutic of humility (now that I think about it, I seem to remember Tony Jones and Stanley Fish suggesting a similar notion). That helps to avoid the limitations of personal interpretations conceived in isolation, I think.

Chris—I wholeheartedly affirm those words from Timothy, that “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” I am not interested rejecting that. But for me, accepting and affirming that Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit does not involve suggesting that it is infallible in its written form. It is divinely inspired, yes, but written by flawed human beings. Furthermore, we are fallible human beings attempting to read it. So I’m not claiming that we need more than the Bible per se, I am just observing that we can’t help but admit that there is always already more at work than the Bible itself—I nor Scripture exist in a vacuum. That’s what I was getting at with the “more complex” line.

Blake – Thanks for the thoughts here, They’re very helpful.

Chris – If you’re going to get to hair-splitting about what the Scriptures say as a means to defend them, you might want to note that the passage you use can also be translated as “everything written is inspired by God and profitable for instruction;” or “everything written that is inspired by God is profitable for instruction.” You’re already making a decision about the Scriptures in your choice of translation of that passage. Nobody who studies the Scriptures seriously can be unaware of the fact that there it involves a human tradition of interpretation, and therein lies the problem with assertions of “Sola Scriptura.”

As I read the comments I can’t help but think of two very different parenting approaches. One says, at dinner with a child, you will eat your carrots. It doesn’t matter if the child thinks or, more importantly, how the child thinks. The second approach says to the child, you can choose, today, between carrots or broccoli. Both are good for the child, and over the long term, the “nutrients” of broccoli and carrots both will find there way into the child.

It seems that in the face of the reality of other sources of authority being brought to the table (the Anglicans never, by the way, bought in to sola scriptura, but then I suspect you know that) we would be better off talking about how the sources of authority, like the nutrients in different healthy foods, can work together.

Being UMC, this isn’t new as I’m sure you know.

Sola Scriptura has never been the rallying cry of Catholicism and several parts of Protestantism.

I find it interesting that so many are struggling with this…still!

I quote you with approval in my own blogpost (http://theliberalspirit.com). As I note there, this ties into Doug Kings ongoing critique of the ELCA’s Book of Faith Intitiative. I also find it interesting that the conservative opposition within the ELCA calls itself “Word Alone.” By the way, I have added your blog to my own blogroll.

Mark, I’m not struggling with Sola Scriptura – I was born-again this way. It’s not a choice, the Holy Spirit just put something in me that leads me to know that God is real, He doesn’t make mistakes, and His Word is infallible. It’s a shame that the UMC can’t accept me as I am.

Blake – Thanks for the post. I have to admit that I get tired of defending myself against those who accuse me of all sorts of terrible things when they find out that I no longer believe in sola scripture or the infallibility of scripture. But I try to remember from whence I came :>) In other words, I was on the other side of the fence at one time (and not just on this subject).

I thought you did a good job of explaining though someone doesn’t believe in Sola scripture
or the infallibility of scripture that doesn’t mean they don’t have the utmost respect for
scripture and the teaching it offers. Two things that steered me into seriously thinking
about what I believed scripture to be and the position it should take in my life was #1 I got
the feeling that I was making an idol out of scripture and #2 that I was treating scripture as if it were magical. I eventually came to the conclusion that there was no evidence for either of those positions and that I was practicing a type of idolatry. Peter Rollins talks about that in his book “How Not To Speak Of God”– how we make an idol out of our understanding of God.
It seems that even with my new position on scripture (and some other things) I still fight myself on a regular basis in resisting that kind of idolatry – resisting the certainty that I can so easily fall into when I come to a conclusion that I am comfortable with. I do find that being a part of a community that lovingly accepts different views and interpretations and is committed to
practicing civility as we all wrestle with understanding scripture and God, helps to keep me humble and a sincere seeker. I find that my doubt and questions and uncertainties have created a space where my faith has actually grown richer – because now my faith is more like faith – now I really must walk by faith and not by sight.

Blake, Thank you for your response. I may not agree with you, but I am interested in understanding your point of view. On my own blog I have posted a story of an experience I had in a bookstore recently with a man who questioned the reliability of Bible translators – I think his concerns relate to your points here. Thanks again for initiating this conversation. Keep striving!

I know this has its limitations but this is how wiki defines sola scriptura:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).

The early Reformers never said that scripture is our only authority when it comes to our faith or that we read it outside of context – as Catholics accuse us of believing – only that everything that governs our Christian life must be through the lens of the authority of scripture. It has authority because of what it is (eyewitness accounts of people who actually interacted with Jesus) not because someone else (the Catholic church, white males etc.) said so.

Why would you reject that idea?

By the way, you’ve written your comments here as an urban, white, male from the US. How then can we trust that any of what you said is actually true, considering just how much your background biases your comments? As a brown person from the third world, the focus on making every view subjective is definitely not in our reality. Who are you then to impose the subjectivity, based on your white, male, urban, American point of view on us?

Unless of course, truth matters and whatever we are doesn’t change the truth of what we should believe.

But of course that sounds too much like the origins of ideas like Sola Scriptura…

Just had to throw this in too:

Take what you said here:
“To read is to interpret; all our readings are always already interpretations and all our interpretations are always already situational. To me, that is inescapable.”

What if, based on my cultural context and background, I were to interpret that to mean I should kill all Americans, what would you say? Would you say that my cultural interpretation of your statement about interpretation is wrong? And if so, by what authority would you say that is wrong?

To admit that we have biases is to simply admit reality. To imply that because we have those biases, we can never communicate truth is to live in incoherence.

I like the use of the term prima. That seems to be a more accurate description of how we all approach scripture anyway (whether we admit it or not). Many of us, and especially those of the charismatic tribes, place much authority in our own experiences, balanced with the authority of scripture. I also like what Phyllis has said about “community” becoming the new authority. When we put these three authorities together (scripture, personal experience, and community), I believe we arrive at something comprehensive and trustworthy. But again, I believe it is true that we already rely on these authorities to varying degrees whether we choose to admit so or not. Is there an as yet unknown authority yet to emerge? Part of me hopes so. I wonder what it will be.

someone might have said this before, but your (Methodism’s) forebears had already figured out the reason, scripture, tradition and spirit thing – the middle way, and one not that far off from Buddhist or Taoist thought… sometimes what i think is emerging is the collective wisdom of the past, loosely papered over by the recent present.

Canbuhay: You’re just being silly with the “what if I think I should kill you” arguement. Inerrentists: We all pick and choose our canon-in-canon; it’s just what we do. If we approached scripture with humility instead of interpretive lenses, with an expectation of being disrupted instead of affirmed in our own opinions, we might be better off. Whoever wrote “God in written form” treads closer to blasphemy than is safe. The Bible (which is a product of nearly three centuries of conversation and compromise, not the product of lightening from the sky) never claims to be God in matter. In the Great Tradition of the Churches, only Jesus is given that place.

Excellent, thank you for a very helpful article. Being a salvationist I am allready very Wesleyan but now I have a handy shorthand for my teaching. Very helpful indeed!

My reading of many “emergents” is that Scripture is taken with utmost seriousness. Advancing beyond sola scriptura is not by any stretch of the imagination a rejection of the Bible. (Indeed, sola scriptura may have been a human-generated “fence” around the Bible that the Bible never claims for itself.) The emergent approach (if there is one) seems to me to be more a matter of listening to the whole Bible and keeping this creative tension alive between different voices therein. Especially the most challenging and disturbing pieces. Christendom necessitated cramming the Biblical message into a consistent system so it could be fed to people. Now that Christendom is over we can actually hear how the message of, say, Ruth is in tension/balance/contradiction with that of Ezra-Nehemiah. I find Brueggemann’s “dialogical” approach more informative here.

Canbuhay May—There’s a lot in your comments, most of which I feel that I addressed in the original post as it pertains to inerrancy. And I think Jerome makes a good point. We all have a our own canon-within-the-canon whether we are Sola or Prima people. The difference in emphasis among Protestant traditions is demonstrative of that I think.

Of course there are bad interpretations. I’m not saying anything goes here. It is up to the community, guided by Jesus axiom to love God and neighbor, to determine what is or isn’t healthy. I think your argument concerning killing is moot when held up to Jesus’ ethos.

I want to make something abundantly clear because I do not want you nor anyone else to misunderstand me. I am most definitely not trying impose my subjectivity with all its inherent limitations, biases, prejudices and pitfalls upon anyone. If anything, I am trying to do the opposite—so that we all understand that our readings are influenced by our own subjectivity. I have absolutely no interest in ideological, theological, or cultural imperialism. At all. I find it to be decidedly un-Christian.

And again, let me underscore that this position is 1) not at all new, it’s already an important part of prominent Christian traditions as others on this thread have pointed out, and 2) I don’t at all think, as I mentioned in the post, that opting for Prima instead of Sola reduces our respect for Scripture nor does it negate its authority for Christian teaching and practice. In my view, it simply owns our fallibility as humans.

Let me also say this as a general statement: I’m not claiming that everyone who holds Sola dear should reject it altogether. If Sola works for you, if it helps you to better love God and neighbor in your context, if helps you embody the fruits of the Spirit, and if it helps you participate in God’s kingdom, then more power to you. I have no interest in changing your mind. I am simply submitting—again not for the first time!—an alternative option for those of us who can no longer hold Sola as we once did.

I think what may be missed in this post is a finding the language of our own beliefs. Sola doesn’t describe my approach to Scripture. But Prima definitely does. And for others Sola works better. Much love to that.

The desire in the post was simply to communicate that alternative. For many in the emergent conversations we have struggled with this tension. For those of you who haven’t feel blessed with that story.

After much study and research to try and get emergent folks to have greater clarity on core issues I came to conclude they generally do reject the authority of scripture. I believe your post clearly reveals that I was right—-despite how you might want to dress that rejection up with your talk about Prima vs. Sola. Such a view leads to rejection of core beliefs of the faith and that leads to heresy and God’s discipline of those promoting such a view. Simply look around at the greater church and you will see your tribe fading away and the quicker the better so its cancer doesn’t spread to more.

And about the whole Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Note that “Quad” means 4, not 3. So when someone writes that the quadrilateral means “Scripture is the primary source of our knowledge of God, but is informed by reason, tradition and experience” you have it wrong. that would be a Trilateral and could convey that scripture is our authority and we understand it by using our mind, experience, and church tradition.

While I would still have a problem with such a view as a trilateral (placing tradition and experience outside of the use of ones mind to understand and study), the whole Quadrilateral means that one is placing all 4 items (reason, tradition, experince, AND scripture) as the 4 means by which one understands God’s word to us today.
Put all the emphasis you want on one over the others that you want and you still have reduced the authority of scripture to a point that heresy is inevitable.

It seems to me that emergents, for the most part, consider themselves to be very intelligent.

At the same time, they seem to be driven by a great desire to have those outside the church to see them as ‘smart’ or ‘reasonable’.

It was much the same attitude that the apostle addressed when he said:

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

For it is written:

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,

but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,

so that no one may boast before him.”

In striving for the approval of the world, emergents seek to distance themselves from ‘evangelicals’ and ‘fundamentalists’ who they will almost always caricature as ignorant, rude, boorish, uncaring buffoons. (This, you will notice, closely mirrors the caricature of Christians found in popular culture and the media.)

Why are emergents willing to throw their brothers under the bus in order to receive the approval of the world?

Blake, I really appreciate this post. For a long time I have been struggling with this concept. Growing up in a conservative Baptist church the concept of “sola scriptura” was practically forced down like broccoli. I think one of the most limiting aspects of this is that it makes all post-scripture writings and experiences seem less than relevant or meaningful. The story of God’s interaction with the world didn’t stop with the last verse of Revelation. But, at least in my background, this is where interpretation, exploration, and interaction with the story ceases. I completely understand the need for a cannon and the value of the writers who had first person accounts. However, I wish more value was placed, more energy was given, and more interpretation and discussion put into the rest of the story.

It would be interesting to be able to see how many emergents, when reading my previous post, skim thru the scripture passage as they think:

‘yeah yeah I’ve read it before’

without really taking the time to hear what the apostle is saying and consider his message.

Katy—Thank you for the kind words. I have a very mixed Christian background (I was Baptist for a time, then non-denominational, then settling in with the Methodist Church). But much of my upbringing parallels what you describe. And, in some sense, it is from that history that I was speaking in the post.

Hi blake i liked your thoughts about “sola scriptura”. There are very similar to my point of view.
Are you influenced in anyway by Karl Barth? Your conclusion about the usage of the Bible is very similar to his. According to Barth the Bible gives a primary testimony about the Word of God, and those who read the scriptures can only be secondary witnesses. (Barth uses Word of God as methaphore of Gods action in the history of the world and the human)
And now perhaps the tricky question: How do you decide which parts of the scriptures are relevant? Were is reason or tradition a “better” source for knwoing about God?
Greetings from Switzerland

Blake. We live in a society that hates rules, authority and the concept of truth and values pleasure as the highest good. Thus when confronted with an issue like gay marriage or homosexuality, having a Prima view of scripture is very convenient. It allows one to say that we feel this a complex phenomena and was a cultural prohibition, one that need not be taken seriously. Clear Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality can be ignored because it gets in the way of people’s love relationships or pursuit of pleasure. After all, my understanding of truth and your understanding of truth differ and, as the Post Modernist Pilate said, “What is truth”? The Bible does not mean what it clearly says. It allows those who call themselves Christians to continue to enjoy the acceptance of a hedonistic post modern society. And that is extremely important to Emergents.

A Prima view of scripture supports religious pluralism and is antagonistic to evangelism. When confronted by Bhuddists, Taoists, Hindus and Moslems it allows us to be viewed as broad minded and tolerant of the many paths to God, because after all, we are all on a journey, even though Jesus clearly said that He is the way, the truth and the Life and that no man comes unto the father but by Him. A Prima view of scripture allows us to ignore unfashionable notions of outlawing abortion even though David talks about the divinity of fetal life (You made all the delicate, inner parts of my bodyand knit me together in my mother’s womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it. You saw me before I was born.) There was a Me while David was still a fetus. Having a Prima view of scripture allows one to ignore the clear warnings of Jesus about a real hell and entertain ideas of Universalism. At heart, emergent beliefs are a desperate attempt to be accepted by a post modern, hedonistic, pluralistic society.

Catholics have long held a non Sola Prima view of scripture. However they hold an extremely strong view of Roman Catholic tradition, so they are not afloat like flotsam. However, Emergent thought is the worst of both worlds. While it rejects the sole authority of the Bible it has no firm view of the authority of tradition and simply blows whichever way Post Modern society wants to go.

Matt Ferguson:
1) Scripture
2)Tradition
3) Reason
4) Experience
Quadrilateral.

It’s interesting how many objections you are getting, Blake. Mostly from people who put their own fundamentalism above the scripture they profess to cherish.

blake,
just to let you know, “prima Scriptura” is already taken. see this blogpost or the wikipedia article.

btw, arguments over infallibility aside, what you’re describing is basically sola Scriptura. the idea is that Scripture is our only true authority, and that we must constantly be testing everything else against it, including our own interpretations of Scripture. if you started reading the Bible in James 2, you might get mixed up in works-based righteousness, but that interpretation needs to be corrected by other Scripture, like Ephesians 2, Romans 4, etc.

the question is where the authority comes from: is it in Scripture alone, or is it in humans? that’s what drove the reformers to fleshing out this doctrine anyway: the papists’ claim that man-made tradition had equal authority to the Word of God. but i digress.

basically, unless you think you can find authoritative teaching in another place, you’re in line with sola Scriptura.

grace and peace,
~walt

It’s funny Jerome that you would so quickly classify me since I never identified myself as an “inerrentist” in any of my comments. I thought you emergent types were all about not putting people into boxes!

But reread what you wrote. You are saying “inerrentists” are wrong to insist that their interpretation is the only one, right? But what are you doing? By saying that that we all “pick and choose our canon-in-canon”, aren’t you describing how you interpret how we interpret the scriptures? And if so, how do you know that interpretation is true? Who are you to insist that is how I view the scripture when clearly you are not from my cultural background?

Perhaps all you are doing is trying to explain what actually happens in reality when we approach scripture…but then how did you discover this truth, despite your limitations as a human being? Did you approach this truth with humility, ready to be corrected just in case that interpretation is wrong? Are you sure this view, that we can never know for certain that what we believe about the Bible is correct, is correct? And are you certain?

By the way, I don’t worship the Bible. I do believe that God in His power is capable of making reality known even to little brown, nonAmerican, foreign people like me. And that He made that known through His Son and through the Word His Son sent through the working of His Spirit, not just through conversations about Him.

Do I come to scripture with certain biases? Of course I do. It includes the simple bias that the meaning of the world we live in and the meaning of words we write are knowable despite the weaknesses of the instruments we use and the people who use those instruments.

If you disagree, then perhaps you shouldn’t approach what I write with your interpretive lenses but instead with humility and the willingness to be wrong – oops I mean “disrupted”.

As I read, and reread the comments here Blake, I am still struck by the fact that you actually haven’t answered any of my concerns because you’ve actually never defined Sola Scriptura.
I’ve given you a definition – not even the best one, but one that is generally accepted – that already takes into account much of what you are saying. Sola Scriptura never involved the belief that the only truth can be found in the Bible (even if it was misinterpreted to include that later on). The teaching never diminished the cultural context the scripture was written in and the cultural context of those who the Holy Spirit used, to write it. In fact, in many parts of the Bible, David, Peter, Paul and other writers insisted on identifying themselves and their weaknesses, allowing those of us who came after them, to be blessed to know God used fallible people in such great ways.
But this is where you need to show me that your conclusion, that we have to reject Sola Scriptura, follows from these facts.
How does our human fallibility prove that Scripture is fallible? Does it always follow that someone imperfect must always give life to something imperfect (see virgin birth story)? Aren’t there room for miracles here (again, see virgin birth story)? And what evidence do you have of scripture’s fallibility, in the first place?
What I read from your comments though (of course through my biased lenses), is that the major reason you reject sola scriptura is that your human limitations as a white, urban, male American prevent you from fully understanding what scripture says.
Please explain how your ignorance proves the unreliability of scripture as our source of authority. What evidence do you have that your physical traits prevent you from understanding what scripture is saying? Or that the physical traits of the writers of scripture, limit their understanding so much that the Bible can no longer be seen as infallible?
Frankly, I’m still very much confused. As I read your comments about scripture, it’s clear that you can’t write your critique of Sola Scriptura without your own (guilt-ridden) cultural biases influencing your thoughts. But if that’s the case, then I have to be just as sceptical about your thesis that your white, male, American urbanness actually affects your thinking and prevents you from understanding reality! That’s just your truth too!
It’s also easy to dredge up Jesus’ commands to love your neighbours as ourselves, as if that’s some sort of universally understood axiom. People have been debating, based on their own cultural limitations of course, what the word “love” means since Jesus verbalized those words. Did God love the people He commanded to be wiped out in Joshua and Judges? Is that what you mean by love?
I think the most important question you need to ask is not, “How do I interpret what Jesus means when He says to love our neighbours?” but “What did Jesus mean when He said to love our neighbours (here’s a hint – it’s not about being nice)?
What I find so frustrating dealing with emergents is how disingenuous dialoguing with them can be, even if they don’t even recognize it. In one sentence Blake you say this:
“I am most definitely not trying to impose my subjectivity with all its inherent limitations, biases, prejudices and pitfalls upon anyone.”
But in the next sentence you say this “so that we all understand that our readings are influenced by our own subjectivity.” Huh? But isn’t that just your subjectivity? And aren’t you imposing your view of how we view the world, on the rest of us? Aren’t you just as guilty of cultural imperialism by insisting that we are all under the curse of such an all-powerful subjectivity that we can’t recognize truth?
To insist that there is no way to know truth outside our lens of culture is to insist on the rightness of your cultural views, including the view that there is no way to know truth outside the lens of our culture! No view, including your view, can escape that generalization.
Of course you quickly move from insisting on the rightness of your view to relativizing how we should approach scripture.
In your original post you write that “Sola Scriptura has never been possible. It just can’t work.” But then in your response to me you say “If Sola works for you, if it helps you to better love God and neighbor in your context, if helps you embody the fruits of the Spirit, and if it helps you participate in God’s kingdom, then more power to you.”
But how can something that has never worked now suddenly “work for you”? How can something that “has never been possible” suddenly help “you participate in God’s kingdom?” It’s like insisting that 2+2 = 4 in one post and then insisting that it really doesn’t matter in another! If it is simply a matter of preference, then there would be no need to correct those who disagree with you!
The Christian God is powerful enough to reveal Himself to me despite the fact that I’m a brown, nonAmerican stuck in the milieu of my culture and that I use the frail tools of my senses, my experience and my reason. Isn’t He powerful enough to do the same for you?

Great post, Blake, thanks for writing it. One point I’d like to add, in reference to your very appreciated emphasis on humility. Even as there are many points where we know more and better interpret Scripture than our theological ancestors did, and that likely our grandchildren will say the same about us, I’d add (with thanks to C.S. Lewis) that there are certain to be points where our ancestors are right and get things better than we do. Even as those folks had cultural blinders they didn’t know about, so do we; and reading about them and the way they interpreted Scripture may help us identify some of our own blindspots. IOW, pre-moderns can teach us post-moderns quite a lot.

Canbuhay (and others),

I’m sorry for whatever has made you so angry, and I’m sorry there’s no way I can think of to say that which doesn’t sound condescending, I don’t mean it that way. I am sorry.

And I think you make excellent points.

But I also think you’re misunderstanding Blake’s point – at least, your understanding differs from mine, because what you’re refuting and attacking doesn’t match what I read.

Excellent points have been made about what sola scriptura’s definition should be, and based on what a lot of people have said, it doesn’t sound that different from Blake’s prima scriptura – that Scripture is first (primary) but it must be interpreted as best we can, as the church has always done, through reason, through use of the whole of Scripture, through community (both the current community, and the tradition that’s been passed down).

What’s a little different, I think, about Blake’s prima Scriptura is its emphasis on humility. Sure, people have always come to Scripture with biases (and I do think that’s all Blake’s saying, Canbuhay, and I don’t hear him saying that we can’t know truth. Notice his embracing the Jesus teaching of love for God and neighbor as truth.).

But many Christians don’t act like they do. There’s a common bumper sticker here in the US – “God says it, I believe it, that settles it.” But that’s usually in reference to some isolated and disputed passage of Scripture. I could grab a passage out of Job where one of Job’s friends says that God causes suffering when we sin, and claim that’s the whole story; but if I read the whole book, I’ll see God rebuking these friends for not speaking the truth of him.

Now, maybe at it’s best sola Scriptura would correct the simplistic tendency to read a random Scripture passage without context or the whole of Scripture, and treat it as if all debate is settled. But by its simple name – Scripture alone – it easily, in my experience, degenerates to that. And it’s not just my experience – the Reformers, supposedly operating under Scripture alone, became Anti-Semites, or set up theocracies, or burned heretics at the stake…things I now, through my understanding of Scripture, repudiate. And the abuses didn’t end there. Much of American Protestantism, much of it supposedly embracing Scripture alone, embraced a supposed “manifest destiny” that let us wipe out native peoples, practice slavery, and engage in horrible, imperialistic abuses abroad. And much of the imperialism, in economic and military matters, continues today. And many American Protestant Christians, embracing in theory sola Scriptura, support this – believing in a strong military and national “defense” (including a huge military industrial complex and the export of weapons to one side or the other, sometimes both, of every major global conflict) as if it were taught by Scripture.

Again, it may well be true that sola Scriptura rightly understood would correct such abuses. But the name is misleading, and in my opinion lends itself to such abuse, in ways that Blake’s trying to address.

Walking humbly with God and admitting that we see through a glass darkly is straight from Scripture, of course, and doesn’t mean we can’t know, communicate, teach, or live by truth. It is, I believe, simply trying to be more truthful, and not pretend that everything we believe is as certain as the most important things we believe. And I believe Scripture spells that out – that some things are clearer, and clearly more important, than others. (For instance, Jesus’s identity as Son of God, Word of God, resurrected Lord, etc., is much plainer to me than the many questionable doctrines people espouse about end times and the various pre/a/post-millenial teachings. Likewise, love for God and neighbor is a lot more important than what one believes about the proper mode of baptism. In my opinion, based on my understanding of Scripture.)

Last thing, related to what I just said. Again, in my experience, Emergent types tend (not universally) to take Scripture much more seriously than the folks I’ve grown up with in Baptist life. This is not to slam Baptists – I remain one – but Baptists are famous for our emphasis on Scripture alone, on the “infallible Word of God” – and yet often don’t read or wrestle with it. In Baptist life, I’ve found most of my peers and mentors able and willing to write off Jesus’s statements about the poor, for example, as hypberbole. “Well, of course He doesn’t really mean sell all you possess and give it to the poor – just be a good person.” “Well, of course He doesn’t really mean that not everyone who calls Him Lord will be saved – if you call Him Lord you can be assured of salvation.” “Well, of course He doesn’t really mean you’ll be judged on the basis of how you treat the least of these – you’ve made a public profession of faith and been baptized, it’s all good.” The best of Baptist theology has taught that Scripture is to be understood through the lens of Jesus – and that would correct these abuses – yet the bulk of Baptist theology in every Baptist church I’ve been part of degenerates to the lower level. Barring a few career Baptist missionaries, the only folks I’ve ever met, personally, who were willing to really struggle with and try to live by these hard saying of Jesus are emergent types. That’s why, despite problems and abuses, I’m as proud to identify with Emergents as I am to identify with Baptists – sometimes moreso, truth be told.

Grace and peace in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Canbuhay, maybe this will help. You’re asking how human fallibility means Scripture is unreliable and not infallible. I’ll point you back to the other Chris’s quotation about the passage from Timothy – that all Scripture is God-breathed. This is something Scripture claims for itself, whereas the infallibility language, to my knowledge, is nowhere to be found. So let’s use the language that Scripture uses for itself.

So ok, all Scripture is God-breathed.

Question: what is Scripture? The canon had not been set when that was written. In fact, many New Testament books had not been written yet – depending on what dates you believe various books were written at, anyway (all such dates based on speculation and interpretation, and not on anything certain). And of course the canon even today differs depending on what branch of Christianity we’re from, with many of us Protestants not accepting the Apocrypha.

Yes, I absolutely believe that God could, and probably did miraculously inspire the writing of those words, and mean them to apply to all of Scripture, including the parts not yet written. But which Scripture? Old and New Testament? Old and New Testament + Apocrypha? Deciding what books are meant by “Scripture” in that statement is already an act of interpretation. It is nowhere spelled out in Scripture, and so that interpretation has to come from us – individually, or through our tradition and our community, etc. And whichever judgement you make, whatever you decide is canonical, God-breathed Scripture – there are millions of Christians alive today, and many millions more who have joined the great cloud of witnessed referenced in Hebrews – who think your canon is wrong.

This is just one instance of many, where we make interpretive judgments, usually without being aware of it or admitting it. We can’t help but do so. Simply by picking a canon, you’ve begun to interpret. That, if you like, is truth, not subjective, but objective reality.

By the way, Adam was God-breathed – God breathed into the man the breath of life. He wasn’t infallible. Something can be useful for correcting and rebuking and instructing in righteousness without being infallible. Psalm 137:13-14 is a good example. My interpretation – it instructs me and trains me in righteousness, not by infallibly expressing the will of God, but by showing me how despicable and hateful God’s people can be and how much we need humility.

I do affirm and try to live by that Timothy passage, by the way. It’s one reason I don’t reject any part of Scripture, as some theologians do – I believe it’s all God-breathed and all profitable and useful. But that doesn’t mean it’s all equal. This is where my Baptist tradition comes in, as for us, the (in history and in theory, at least) most helpful lens has been to interpret Scripture in light of Jesus.

But all of that means interpretation is going on; and as Blake says, it goes on whether we’re aware of it or not. That’s truth. We can admit it or hide from it. I believe we get closer to truth – to the Way, the Truth, and the Life, our Lord Jesus – by admitting that truth, and still striving to walk in His Way, with guidance from the Holy Spirit and in fellowship with our brothers and sisters.

Oops – wrote too quickly and said something badly. I wrote “Yes, I absolutely believe that God could, and probably did miraculously inspire the writing of those words, and mean them to apply to all of Scripture, including the parts not yet written. ” I meant that I absolutely believe God miraculously inspired those words, and I believe God intended them to refer even to books not yet written, like the Gospels. My “probably” was misplaced.

Chris wrote:

“I’m sorry for whatever has made you so angry, and I’m sorry there’s no way I can think of to say that which doesn’t sound condescending, I don’t mean it that way. I am sorry.”

Yes it is condescending.

But it’s a fairly common response that emerges from these conversations.

The dismissive tone of emergents toward those who disagree is incredible.

Emergents can sure dish out the critique, but they often don’t take it as eagerly.

The constant refrain from emergents that the ‘rest of the church just doesn’t get it’ is hardly in tune with the humble attitude that they profess.

I whole heartedly agree with your “Prima Scriptura” stance. I would go so far as to say that is the stance of the New Testament writers as well.

The writers of the NT were’nt a Sola Scriptura crowd. Paul references Jewish tradition, which he validates and expands upon in 1 Cor 10 when he talks of the rock that followed Israel. Paul quotes gentile philosophers (Titus, the comment about Cretans comes to mind, among other quotes) when making his points at times, even preaching to the throng on Mars hill by quoting pagan religious texts. The book of Jude quotes apocryphal texts to make a point (the argument over Moses’ body). When we set a standard of Sola Scriptura we are actually setting a different standard than the writers of scripture adhered to. If a document or person quotes philosophers, pagan religious texts, and religious traditions to make it’s points, it can’t really be called Sola Scriptura, can it? Can I do those things and call myself Sola Scriptura? :)

Sola Scriptura itself is an extrabiblical tradition.

Another note is that if one listens and considers when someone says something is “biblical” in a Sola Scriptura sense what they more often than not mean is that it is consistent with their interpretation of scripture (be it personal or traditional). If something is not explicitly stated in scripture, but is rather inferred based upon scripture then it is interpretation, a process that happens in the mind of the interpreter. Whether that inference is accurate or not is secondary to the fact that the cognitive process of interpretation does not carry the authoritative weight that scripture does. Some people, quite innocently and naively, equate their interpretation of scripture with scripture, then mistake a disagreement with their interpretation with a disagreement with scripture.

Hopefully that was at least somewhat coherent. The tiny window one types in makes it hard to check for logical continuity. :)

I’m not sure what Patrick is talking about but it is not Sola Scriptura. There is nothing that prevents a preacher from quoting the Beatles or Bob Dylan or Desmond Tutu in a sermon. As long as new doctrine is not being expressed and that it does not contradict the scriptures and that it is not placed on the same level as the revealed word.

Here’s what Sola Scriptura is: Sola scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today.

Amen, Rick. I find it interesting that no one has replied/debated you. Solid truth will do that I guess. It’s funny how “high intellect” can really become a stumbling block when dealing with a relatively simple truth. I love Jesus!!! Hangest thou in there everyone, just don’t hangest yourself!

Oh, I almost forgot….I also know why I love Jesus! Blessings.

Both Jude and 1 Cor 10 include information from extrabiblical sources, an apocryphal book and Jewish tradition that “is not found directly or logically within Scripture” treating the events described as real events, but having no support other than the extrabiblical sources, to make their doctrinal point. They fail your test of Sola Scriptura.

Secondly, your inclusion of the term “logically” makes the mistake of equating an inference with Scripture. Logical inference is an operation that takes place in your (or whoever wrote your definition) head and is not scripture. Even if the thinker is brilliant, the inferences is not Scripture. It mistakes interpretation for the Scripture itself. And 30,000 Protestant denominations and growing is a fairly good indication that different people infer differently.

Thirdly, your appeal to “foundational” and “formal principle”s of protestantism is an appeal to tradition that I simply don’t find compelling. (nope, I’m not RC)

Patrick: The Bible is an original document composed of remembered accounts, spoken sermons, the Sayings of Quoleth, Solomons songs, Davids poems, Pharoh’s comments, Greek plays, popular songs, quotes from satan, quotes from books that are not now existant, the finger of God, Hebrew commentaries and many other sources. It has 66 authors (if not more) and was all inspired by the Holy Spirit. Once the canon was complete the authors admonished us to not add or take away a word. Jesus said “For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.” I think John Calvin and Martin Luther and the reformers were smart enough to figure that out. That has nothing to do with the principal of Sola Scriptura.

(BTW, I can’t imagine Brian McLaren agreeing that the smallest letter or little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] of hebrew scripture is critically important)

That’s not my definition of Sola Scriptura, it is Wikipedia’s. I suppose I could have quoted a number of others. The author is saying that if we can’t logically infer a doctrine from the text then one should not give it creedence. For example, the trinity is a logical inference. Leprachauns are not. The point of Sola Scriptura is that we don’t give equal weight to the Koran and we don’t give equal weight to traditions such as selling indulgences. Emergents like Tony Jones and Brian McLaren want to say that we can never really know the truth of the Bible completely therefore everyone’s opinions are equally valid and should be respected. Whereas I believe that if you are advocating worshipping angels I can appeal to the Bible to determine whether the practice is valid. The fact that it may be an old tradition would not sway me. The RC church rules by absolute papal authority. I suppose Papal authority is an alternative to denominations. Another way to look at denominations is that diversity is healthy and that they add flavor.

“Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today.” I am not making an appeal, this is just a statement of fact. A historian making an observation.

OK. So you are not a protestant.

What comes after “Sola Scriptura” for an emergent that would be “Sola McLaren” surely? ;)

Thanks for the post.

Rick,
Yes, I’m fully aware of the way the Bible has been cobbled together over it’s history. I think you would agree that it didn’t get faxed from heaven, similar to the Islamic view of the Qur’an. It was written by people. People that apparently used a different standard of what can be used in the formation of one’s beliefs. The did use extra-biblical materials and considered them authoritative. You’ve set up a standard of what God can use that they would fail.

On the “jots and tittles”, it might be interesting to find out if they were present in the oldest manuscripts, before vowel points were added to the text. But that is another matter all together. :)

I’m not Brian Mclaren, nor am I Tony Jones. If you want to talk to them, that would be fine. As for me, I will speak for me, about the issues previously discussed, rather than get into a discussion about personalities.

On Sola Scriptura… the moment one has begun to use logic (to which I am not opposed, but would rather advocate for) one has moved beyond the text into one’s own mind and therefore gone beyond the text and away from Sola Scriptura. When one uses logic, inference, it takes place in the mind, which does not carry the same weight as Scripture. The moment anyone says anything that is not a specific quote of the text one has moved away from Sola Scriptura. In fact, I would assert the very process of translating scripture (which I have no problem with, but would advocate) moves beyond Sola Scriptura because the process of translation require interpretation. Reading a text that is not in the original language takes one outside Sola Scriptura.

Next point, to assert one believes in Sola Scriptura is to affirm a tradition, therefore making the assertion a performative contradiction. The very affirmation negates the affirmation.

Doctrines are comprised (accurately or inaccurately) of dots connected in one’s head, outside the text. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity (which I believe and affirm) is reached by just such a process of inference/logic. An interesting twist on this is that unless everyone in your congregation can specifically line by line cite the scriptures (the process aside) to support the Trinity, the believe it based upon tradition. So, many people in your congregation most probably believe an inference (not Sola Scriptura) based upon a tradition (not Sola Scriptura). Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with that, but it is not Sola Scriptura.

Prima Scriptura puts scripture, the Bible in particular, first in the process of navigating faith. It does not “give equal weight to the Koran” or “give equal weight to traditions such as selling indulgences”. If this is your understanding of Prima Scriptura, then you misunderstand.

On Jones and McLaren… whereas they probably do think we can’t know the meaning of the Bible exhaustively, as do I, your statements of “everyone’s opinions are equally valid” does not follow. I’ve read or heard nothing from either indicating such a stance. It is however a common misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the “emergent” position. You might try looking into the difference between infinite (anything goes) and tranfinite (a bounded set with internal variation). Even at that, this is dragging personalities into the discussion. They can speak for themselves. You’re stuck speaking to me. :)

I am not arguing against the existence of denominations, I am simply pointing to them as pretty compelling evidence that the process of inference is not infallible. Not everyone can be “right” about everything, and have so much variation.

Crapnoid! I mistyped… it should be transfinite, not tranfinite.

Test

Blake, here’s a stab at a short reply:
After we deconstruct sola scriptura, we deconstruct the canon. (And at all times we reconstruct, and celebrate scripture, too).

Are we all happy to accept the boundaries of canonicity, established in the 4th century CE?

(I’m repeating myself here, but this idea still seems relevant): One of the fundamental problems with canonizing – excluding and including — is that it is somewhat arbitrary. For example, leading up to the synod of Hippo, a book was investigated and declared canonical or uncanonical, but once canonical, no part of that book (i.e., a verse or verses) could then be subject to that same investigation.

What is it that makes the unit of acceptance of a text a “book”, especially since many of the books of the bible — Genesis for instance — had multiple authors?

Meister Eckhart said, “Every creature is a word of God”, and Aquinas “Revelation comes in two volumes, the bible and nature”.

I believe the faith of the future will look at a far greater swathe of inputs in their search for God and Truth, and that the faith we have in Christ will be far more cosmic and generous in nature.

Patrick Boatman wrote:

“On Sola Scriptura… the moment one has begun to use logic (to which I am not opposed, but would rather advocate for) one has moved beyond the text into one’s own mind and therefore gone beyond the text and away from Sola Scriptura.”

This is a caricature of Sola Scriptura, not the real thing.

Patrick, if you want to reject Sola Scriptura, reject the real deal, not your strawman.

Joe… I’m addressing issues that are typically ignored because they are inconvenient.

The cognitive process that is interpretation exists whether or not one is comfortable with it. If Sola Scriptura was really “scripture only” then everyone that espoused it would agree on all issues. It is a misnomer. It only really makes sense in a universe that doesn’t exist. One in which one, anyone, can just read the text and KNOW what it means. In the universe that does exist, everyone that KNOWS, unfortunately KNOWS something different than the next guy.

“I know that most men, including those at ease with
problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept
even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such
as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to
colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others,
and which they have woven, thread by thread into the
fabric of their lives.”

Leo Tolstoy

Nic—You raise an interesting question and I think the point you make in that last paragraph is particularly important. I believe that we are already starting to explore that greater swathe of inputs that you mention. In fact, I would argue that though most people would not care to admit it, many of us have begun to do that already in our journey. That is not to reduce the importance of the Bible at all, only to admit that God does not reside in the Bible alone. So maybe in the future will be be more honest and open about that as we appeal to other frequencies of our experience and lived history.

Patrick, you are getting lost here. God can compose scripture any way He wishes and once He does we are obligated to study it, memorize it, repeat it to our children, not add or take away from it and pay attention to every jot and title no matter how He composed it. Agreed? Just because God composed scripture from a variety of sources does not give you license today to pick and choose traditions and elevate them to the level of scripture (or as you put it, use extra-biblical materials and consider them authoritative) or to reject any scripture that you have deemed, mere tradition and not inspired. Agreed?

“All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.” 2Timothy

“Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.” 2 Peter

“Then Jesus said to them, “You foolish people! You find it so hard to believe all that the prophets wrote in the Scriptures.”

“Then Jesus took them through the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining from all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke

“Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” Matthew

“Then he said, “You skillfully sidestep God’s law in order to hold on to your own tradition.” Mark

“Then the devil took him to the holy city, Jerusalem, to the highest point of the Temple, and said, “If you are the Son of God, jump off! For the Scriptures say, ‘He will order his angels to protect you. And they will hold you up with their hands so you won’t even hurt your foot on a stone.’ Jesus responded, “The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the Lord your God.”

(Jesus used a logical inference here and established a hermeneutical principal that scripture comments on itself and can be comprehended)

“This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him—speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture.” 2 Peter.

You are getting lost in epistemology. Your issue is not just with logical inferences, because everything that we read and see is mediated by our brain, our culture etc. Your problem is a technical one of how do we know what we know, or epistemology. Logic is woven into everything we read and understand. However, just because we know in part or understand in part does not remove from us the obligation to be obedient to what we understand. Nor does it negate the fact that there is truth in the bible that can be known. Just because we can never exhaustively and perfectly know a thing doesn’t mean we are not obligated to read, believe and obey. We are expected to wrestle with scripture using our God-Imaged logical ability to arrive at an implicit and singular meaning of scripture. If we have any error it is because we do not know the scriptures, as Jesus said.

Why do you have a problem with the principal that “the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture.”

Do you have another tradition or book that is more reliable than the Bible? If so, we’d like to know. Is the Bible in error? What authority did you use to arrive at that conclusion? Do you have some other Christian doctrines that you’ve arrived at in a text outside the Bible? We’d like to know.

“Why do you have a problem with the principal that “the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture.” ”

First off, the article is about Sola Scriptura, not infallibility. Secondly, that is a tradition ABOUT (I don’t mean to be perceived as yelling, just want to emphasize the word) the Bible. Notice the above statement is not scripture, it is a statement about scripture based on inference, and is therefore a traditon. I’m not willing to accept your particular tradition. Not acknowledging something as a tradition does not make it cease to be a tradition. You continue to mistake (a common mistake) your interpretation for scripture. The statement above is not scripture.

Nice block of quotes. I have no problem with anything they say.

Here’s an interesting juxtaposition

“God can compose scripture any way He wishes” … Rick

“This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him”… Scripture.

I’m gonna go with scripture’s description of itself rather than your description of it.

Yes, I do think that Scripture God-Breathed, just like God breathed into Adam, Jesus breathed on the disciples, the breath of God brought beasts to life in Hebrew literature.

Yes, Jesus did appear to use logic in making connections, and I once again (having never argued once against it) would affirm the use of logic. That is not Sola Scriptura. Logic (as a human operation) is fallible (It CAN fail). Rejection of a human interpretive matrix, yours in particular, is not rejection of scripture.

Your arguments are imbedded with multiple inferences and traditions that are not acknowledged as things that occur outside of the text. I do not accept your interpretation of the text. I do not accept your traditions about the text. I do accept the text in the context of what the text says about itself. Failure to accept your interpretation and tradition is not a failure to accept the text.

Your questions about infallibility are off topic. You’re questions about me and my particular doctrinal beliefs are off topic. This article and chain of response is about Sola Scriptura, not me, not Brian Mclaren, not Tony Jones, not infallibility, not about relativism (which I reject). You’re beginning to change the subject and I have no desire to keep shifting premises when a previous premise doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. That could go on for ever. :-)

Patrick Boatman wrote:

“The cognitive process that is interpretation exists whether or not one is comfortable with it. If Sola Scriptura was really “scripture only” then everyone that espoused it would agree on all issues.”

Nonsense.

That’s akin to saying ‘if the scripture were true, everyone would believe it’.

Sorry, that was incredibly tortured logic on your part. Talk about a strawman.

If you’re gonna go there, have fun. I’m out because this has ceased to be rational dialogue. Have fun arguing against the imaginary me. The real me is going somewhere else.

That being said, i will probably cut and paste this dialogue to my blog. It’s been a while since I’ve posted something substantial there.

Patrick: Sorry. I was trying to stick with the definition of Sola Scriptura which describes the Bible as infallible or innerrant. Those were rhetorical questions at the end, not personal. Each one was based on a point contained in the definition of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is only a principal, not scripture. But I believe it is a principal that Jesus and the writers of the new testament seem to promote (that’s why the scipture quotes). Sorry for monopolizing space on this issue. You may be right, and I may be wrong but it’s fun to learn. I will be quiet now. God Bless you.

Rick, my bad. I failed to distinguish between you and Joe White. He’s the one arguing against an imaginary me.

Even at that I’m gonna step away too. God Bless. :)

I am so tired of that damned baby and his damned bathwater. I say throw ‘im out. Babies are amazingly resilient—the little farts always come crawling back.

The only reason anyone would ever throw a baby out with the bathwater would be if the water (and the baby) were so filthy that you couldn’t tell them apart. Sometimes you have to dump the whole thing out (gently, please!) so that you can actually see which parts are baby and which parts are just dirty water.

And now, before you turn me over to child protective services, let’s step out of metaphor for a minute…

Part of my own spiritual journey came about when my inner conflict was so great that I became willing to jettison the entire religion of Christianity for awhile. Out it all went—baby, bathwater, bath toys, Bible-is-the-inerrant-literal-word-of-God….

Then, over time, and in the clarity of silence the baby came crawling back. Turned out he was a strong little fart who knew where he belonged all along.

The primary issue for sola scriptura during the reformation and even today is what is our authority! Is it the traditions of men that clearly go against the bible or is it perfect infallible word of God? That is the key Sola Scriptura is saying that we conform ourselves to the Word of God not to the obviously wrong traditions of men. There is one Truth which is the reveiled word of God and there is one true interpretation of that. We may not always get it right, but that truth is our standard. We try, through true study of the word of God, to understand God that one true meaning. Furthermore, that Truth can be known! Truth is not relative, the Bible is not relative, the word of God is uncompromisable it is the ulimate “Authority”. Our interpretations are not the authority; our tradition are not our authority. The only authority is the HOLY PERFECT WORD of GOD! So Sola Scriptura is still very alive and very necessary in our walk with Jesus.

N.T. Wright’s book The New Testament and the People of God does an amazing job of addressing these issues, particularly in his explication of Critial Realism with respect to understanding scripture. It provides an excellent way through the pomo malaise for Self-Hating-Suburban-Honkies.

Sola scriptura led to fundamentalism, the idea that nearly every jot and tittle in the scriptures need be interpreted literally—at face value. That led to the popularity of things like Darbyism and pasting past prophecies on the future and using them as a crystal ball for predicting all kinds of maneuvers and scenarios, even in politics and foreign policy. As time goes on, it all dissolves into a joke, because it never happens. The credibility of millions of Christians is at stake. But the work of God through Christ won’t stop. That’s the only essential work there is. And the church is about to emerge, again. Because we have to. The Bible won’t change—and it was a compendium put together by committee. When I review the apocrypha, I think the judgment of those committees was sound. And we have not yet plumbed the depth of the Writ. “The scripture is of no private interpretation,” the scripture says. That sounds very comfortably post-modern to me.

Blake,

I like your Prima move. And while I am all for abstract discussion about how we can better articulate our faith (such as giving our beliefs new names, etc), I am convinced that in the end this or any other mental gymnastics will make little impact. At least, certainly not between people whose only thing in common is that they chat online and only because they realized they disagreed with each other.

I am convinced that the only minds we have the power to really change are those we are in community with – and by this I mean incarnational, flesh on flesh community (as opposed to virtual). When people actually see us, know us, break bread with us, minister alongside us, cry and pray with us, read scripture with us, then, and perhaps only then, will they have to reconcile their belief that sola scriptura is the only way with the reality of the man or woman before them who confesses that SS is BS.

I recall my undergrad theological education and being introduced to historical criticism and the DH for the first time. What I was hearing was so new to me and part of me screamed that this was heresy and that my professor was not a Christian. The kicker was, I knew this man. I knew him to love Jesus. I knew he loved Scripture. I saw the look on his face as he read it. He was a man in love with God. It took time, but after awhile I had to repent of my old ways of thinking and trust that God was working in and through this man. I’m convinced that such repentance on my part would not have happened if my only interaction with him was online, or if our only common denominator was what was disagreed upon.

Being that it is Pentecost weekend it is perhaps fitting to admit that we can give new names to things in an effort to make our beliefs more palatable to our more conservative, fundamentalist brothers and sisters. In the end, however, it will be the Spirit that changes their minds and hearts. Our task in the meantime is to show in our living just how much we love Jesus and the story we have been given (Scripture) and how that defines our very lives. If we do that, it may just be enough to confound the hell out of ‘em, just as I was in my Intro to OT class years ago.

grace and peace,
Chad Holtz

1. I am a nice person.
2. Therefore, “Prima” is true.

OMG, Chad, it’s a breakthrough in abstract thinking!!!

(Don’t get excited, Steve. I just came down to get a sip of water and had a second to throw a little creek-rock at Chad.)

(#67) “Then, over time, and in the clarity of silence the baby came crawling back. Turned out he was a strong little fart who knew where he belonged all along.”

Jesus in plain sight. Thanks Ruth Marie.

Exclusivity and division dominate when we read the bible as a recipe or science book rather than poetic metaphor of that which is ultimately beyond our understanding (lean not…).

It’s the nature of the cross to subvert our most cherished religious opinions and replace them with the very heart of love itself.

This Baby always crawls back. So dump the bathwater and love each other.

RuthMarie
I like your no bullshit approach to truth. It is irreligious, and displays a deep faith on your part, unfetterd by sentimentalism. Don’t let the church police take that away from you.

John L
Hi again – Precisely! We have to take responsibility for our readings of the scripture, especially where these readings lead us astray. “Cherished religious opinions” are often masks for sentimentalism and fear.

Blake, Thanks for your thoughts, especially those on interpretation. I do believe that reading in community is a necessary step of biblical interpretation. The Bible does not stand on its own, but must be read, and thus, it must be interpreted. Reading and interpreting with others can offer multiple, but equally valid, interpretations. But we also must seek to read with others outside our communities. Reading with those who are very different from us can help us to see the text differently and may open our minds and hearts to a fresh experience of the text. I have recently written on this at http://www.wildernesspreacher.blogspot.com/.
Peace, Drew Smith

I’m guessing someone has put this up already, but I skipped some of the posts in the 50s and 60s so I may have missed it… ;-)

A long time ago (well, a hundred years or so) a bunch of philosophers resolved to believe only what they could detect (or infer) with their five senses. They called themselves Logical Positivists. They really thought they’d cracked things until someone pointed out that the assertion that we can only believe what our five senses tell us cannot be deduced from sense-experience. And so they ‘vanished in a puff of logic.’

What I find really amazing is that anyone can propound a theological methodology called ‘Sola Scriptura’, when the said scriptures don’t make any such claim for themselves. As has been said by both sides, there is something that comes first, the assertion that the thing is true. So we no longer have ‘sola’ anything, we are relying on other authorities – the people who told us to believe this thing: the reformers, the church fathers, our pastor, our friends…

Those who believe in Sola Scriptura believe in it BECAUSE some external justification for the doctrine was given to them, thus fatally undermining the doctrine…

As far as I can tell, the point of the original post was not to engage in debate about the rights and wrongs of SS, but rather to ask what (to use Charles Kraft’s phrase) its ‘dynamic equivalent’ might be within postmodern culture. That is perhaps the most important conversation we can have… and so far I’ve only seen one book really, really go for it: Beyond Fondationalism. Any other suggestions?

Simon,

You could try “The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture” by N. T. Wright.

I’ve got “Beyond Foundationalism” but was side tracked by a debilitating X-Box 360 addiction before I finished. Now that I’m not messing with the machine any more I should finish the book. :)

Chad, you wrote: “I am convinced that the only minds we have the power to really change are those we are in community with – and by this I mean incarnational, flesh on flesh community (as opposed to virtual).”
I agree with you that this form of communication is extremely limiting community but don’t give up yet. You have never met me in person but you have had a bigger impact on me (at least got me thinking on some stuff) than you probably realise.
Peace to you brother.

John 1:1-3 (NASB77)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Matthew 28:18 (NASB77)
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ” All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”

The Logos/Word (revealed in the flesh as Christ) is FULL of grace and truth and has ALL authority. Why do we need to seek ultimate truth apart from Christ? Jesus (as the Word made flesh) did not say that he held primary authority. I do gather wisdom from authorities in this world for use in this world, but may we only take wisdom from God, interpreted not by men, but by His Spirit, for things eternal.

“My position as an urban, white, American, male influences my reading more than I will ever know. The same could be said of the writers of Scripture.”

2 Peter 1:19-21 (NASB77)
19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Yes, men have, with self-motivation, errantly interpreted Scripture, but that does not mean that those to whom God entrusted the task of recording His Logos falsely interpreted.

Eugene,
That is because you are just weird :) And from South Africa.

Love ya, bro.

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ Matthew 7:15, 21-23

So good to know that NT Wright has issued ‘The Last Word’.

Now we don’t have to see ‘thru a glass darkly’. He’s got it all figured out.

I can’t wait to read it.

I found your discussion because a friend of mine said on facebook he joined The Emergent Church and I wanted to find out what that meant. I’m disappointed but not surprised. I’m not a theologian or intellectual. I do agree with Mark Twain, “It’s not the parts of the Bible I don’t understand that concern me; it’s the parts I do understand.”

Joe White and Canbuhay: Thanks for believing God. The Word is God, not a thing to be coldly analyzed. Jesus is God, the Word in the flesh. Thanks, brothers.

To you emergents: I know some atheist secularists who would find this group very intellectual and socially acceptable—and who will never meet Jesus here. If you don’t have a personal encounter with Jesus that causes you to recognize your need for a savior and gratefully receive the forgiveness He bought for you on the cross—you’ll die in your sins and spend eternity in a real place known as hell.

As I’ve explored my friend’s facebook associations, I’m finding these religious affiliations to be very judgmental in their stated desire to give freedom to all, except those who lift up the name of Jesus. Jesus hasn’t gotten much of your time or “ink.”

Jesus IS the Word that you are attempting to dismiss as outdated and unfashionable, although you vehemently deny it, you sure aren’t comfortable saying, “I’ll humbly trust You, LORD, more than my own thinking or experiences. I’ll take You at Your Word and trust that You’ll correct me when I misunderstand You.” After all, the aspostle Paul was Saul the devoted Pharisee, who simply needed to be redirected. He sincerely believed—wrongly!—that he was honoring God, and God corrected him. He humbly received that correction and used the Scriptures you find to be insufficient to prove that Jesus is the promised Messiah, and only by believing, trusting, relying, leaning on Him do we receive salvation.

See Joe White’s post #31. Really, I think that Scripture ought to humble us all and cause us like Job to clap our hands over our mouths to keep from displaying our foolishness any further.

Kimberly,
I think you have terribly misunderstood the nature of “emergent.” I think if you stick around and read some more by others around here (or attend an emerging church yourself) you will be delightfully surprised to find the emphasis placed on the person and work of Jesus Christ. Emerging started in part as a way to get back to the Way of Jesus as opposed to the ways of humankind.

peace to you,
Chad

Joe White – Wright’s book, The Last Word, is excellent. It has nothing to do with Wright having the last word (it’s laughable to think of N.T. Wright making such a claim) but rather about Scripture being God’s authoritative word.

You should read it before castings aspersions.

Thanks for this post. I’ve always leant toward “sola scriptura” as “prima scriptura” and used the former for convenience. I like Luther’s critique of the RCC, where tradition played the major role. Essentially he argued for the primacy of scripture over tradition.

Also, you write well and I really liked the biographical approach!

Joe, remember, it’s the Last Word. After you read it you don’t get to talk or type any more. :-P

Chad, I can’t do traditional church anymore, not even in “contemporary” clothing. I grew up in a traditional mainstream church and I’ve worked for another similar denomination, both of which want to mix Eastern idolatry and new age mysticism and secular socialism to make themselves acceptable to men, since the Bible just isn’t hip enough for us neo-Babylonians. Poetical, meant-to-confuse language turns me off; I won’t buy it. Is there a post/page/site you can direct me to that won’t describe emergent in flowery language? Say plainly what you believe, instead of trying to make it “palatable” to those of us who think if God can speak to and use simple fishermen, unwilling prophets and donkeys, gee, He can get His message across to me, too. (Not to minimize GOD, just to say that He has given us a measure of understanding. I would be lying if I say I can’t understand anything.)
Yeah, it’s easier in the flesh to see the reality of a person’s faith, but I’m busy homeschooling 4 little kids, teaching them to love God and His Word, work hard, be kind. Unless you’re in The Cities MN, we’re not likely to meet until heaven.

Kimberley wrote:

“Poetical, meant-to-confuse language turns me off; I won’t buy it.”

Well said.

So much of the Emergent movement purposely obscures what they believe by piling on new buzzwords.

It’s this pseudo-intellectual pretense that is a huge turnoff for most; but it does appeal to a small group that consider themselves smarter than the average bear.

If you are trying to figure out Emergent doctrinal distinctives, it seems to me that most Emergent salesmen arrive at one of these points (or something similar) eventually:

‘We care more about missions than you do.’

‘We care more about the poor than you do.’

‘We care more about peace than you do.’

‘We care more about the environment than you do.’

‘We care more about justice than you do.’

And then they finish with a description of how Emergents seek to walk in humility.