Almost final theses on sola scriptura

  1. That which determines your authority is your authority.
  2. Scripture cannot determine its form since it does not list a canon (or even criteria for one).
  3. The Church can, though.
  4. Therefore, the Church is penultimate authority (1, 3).
  5. That which determines your authority determines how the sub-authority (or text) is to be read (1, 4).
  6. The Church determines how Scripture is to be interpreted (3, 5).
  7. Jude 3 says contend for the faith once delivered to all the saints.
  8. This delivery was made independent of a complete canon (which blocks Bahnsen’s contention that recognition of a canon is distinct from its authority.  I don’t grant that, but let’s pretend for a moment:  so what?  The apostolic deposit was made either before the canon was complete or before Jude knew of the “canon” (and I still maintain that the idea of a New Testament canon probably wasn’t known to the apostles).  Further, this “deposit” is somewhat synonymous with “tradition.”)
  9. Therefore,  “scripture” and “tradition” are not the same (8).
  10. Yet, there exists cases where “tradition” is used in a positive sense (2 Tim. 1:13-14;  2:15).

One comment on “Almost final theses on sola scriptura

  1. Vincent says:

    What’s fascinating about modern Biblical/canon scholarship and “textual criticism” is that all of their textual discoveries completely dismantle the validity of the Protestant canon — and yet they ignore it.

    The Vatican, Alexandrian and every other major “codex” contains the Septuagint for the “old testament” (including all the books they claim as spurious), while their “new testaments” include books such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

    Why do “textual criticism” and other scientific endeavors with the Scriptures if you’re going to ignore all of the findings that disagree with your presuppositions (or “traditions of men”)?

Comments are closed.