Sola Scriptura: Part Two

Now we come to the second part of our two-part series on Sola Scriptura, as we make our way through the Five Solas of the Reformation. In this post, we will be tackling the most common objections, arguments, and scripture verses used to try to debunk Sola Scriptura. Let's get right to it.

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible!
We already dealt with this in the last Sola Scriptura post, but I thought it would be good to mention it again. Though Sola Scriptura isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it can be logically inferred from what is taught in the scriptures.

Until the invention of the printing press, the Bible was not readily available for most Christians. How could they possibly have applied Sola Scriptura?
This argument is usually brought up by Catholics, in an attempt to justify tradition. If the Bible isn't available, than tradition is necessary, and Sola Scriptura is impractical at best. But here's the problem: the Bible's authority is not based on it's availability. The Bible is the word of God, and thus, its authority is universal, regardless of its whether or not you have access to it.

If it weren't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't even have the Bible!
This argument basically says that we Protestants are shooting ourselves in the foot when we challenge the Catholic Church with Sola Scriptura, since the Catholics are the ones who decided upon and compiled the canon of scripture. Essentially, they say we have the Catholics to thank for the Bible, because we wouldn't have it without them. But that's not quite how it is. We don't have the Bible because of the Catholic Church. On the contrary, we have the Bible in spite of the Catholic Church! Let me explain. For a long time, the Catholic Church didn't want the common person to have access to the Bible, but instead wanted them to rely on the Church to get their daily dose of Biblical truth. The Bible was stuck in Latin, and was not translated into other languages until around the time of the reformation. In this way, the Catholic Church maintained a "monopoly" of sorts on scripture and it's meaning, forcing everyone to accept their interpretation of the scriptures, since the common people of the Middle Ages couldn't read (much less read Latin). It wasn't until the reformers came along that the Bible began getting translated into common languages, and even then the Catholics did everything they could to stop it, by persecuting and excommunicating people such as William Tyndale, John Wycliff, and Martin Luther. If we have anyone to thank for the Bible, it's not the Catholics. It's the Reformers and the printing press.

There are thousands of Protestant denominations! How's Sola Scriptura workin' out for ya?
Catholics argue that Sola Scriptura is a dangerous doctrine, and creates disunity between Christians. Most Protestants hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but how many Protestants agree on what the Bible means? Not many, as is evidenced by the many different Protestant denominations which exist throughout the world. Thus, Catholics say that interpretation of the Bible should be left to the Catholic Church authority and none else. Otherwise, we get the divided mess that Protestantism is.
But this argument doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that Sola Scriptura is wrong or bad, it just proves that mankind is fallible and tainted by sin, as we pointed out in the last post. And for the record, there is division in the Catholic Church as well. This argument only reinforces the fact that there is no human can infallibly interpret the scriptures, and that includes the Pope.

The Bible says we should follow tradition!
Yet another Catholic argument, used in the defense of the traditions that Sola Scriptura attempts to tear down. I Corinthians 11:2 and II Thessalonians 2:15 are some of the verses Catholics cite. However, we must remember, Sola Scriptura is not an argument against all tradition. It is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical, and anti-biblical traditions.The traditions Paul was referring to in those passages were not in disagreement with scripture. Traditions that do disagree with scripture should be discarded, which is the whole point of Sola Scriptura.

Protestants are being hypocritical when they preach Sola Scriptura. They claim to follow the Bible only, but in reality, they follow the teachings of men such as Calvin and Luther!
Not exactly an argument against Sola Scriptura, but still an argument that I thought was worthy of mention, seeing as I'm a Calvinist and hear this a lot. Here's my answer: Men like Calvin and Luther didn't add their own separate teaching to the Bible, the way the Catholic Church has done. They simply interpreted what the Bible says to get their teachings. Whether their interpretations were correct or not is up for debate, since, as I've said, all men are fallible (including Luther and Calvin). So yes, a lot of Protestants follow the teaching of Luther and Calvin, but said teachings are derived from scripture, not added to it, and thus we are not being hypocritical when we claim Sola Scriptura while following said teachings.

Well, that's it. Six of the most common arguments I could find against Sola Scriptura, refuted. However, this is by no meas an extensive or exhaustive list. There are many more, but it would take a much larger post to address them all. If you think I didn't do a good job refuting these objections, or you know of a specific objection that you haven't heard a good rebuttal to, let me know in a comment, and I'll see what I can do!

Thus concludes our brief look at Sola Scriptura. Next up is Sola Fide!

Sola Scriptura: Part One

Image courtesy of myself

I've been waaay too lazy about getting back into the five points of Calvinism, and so, I will finally be re-booting the series I started a while back. This time though, I'll be starting with the Five Solas of the Reformation first, and then I'll do the five points of Calvinism after that. This posts will be shorter, hopefully sweeter, and Lord-willing, daily. Let's start out with a little history of the Five Solas.

The Five Solas were essentially a theological outline of were the early Protestants stood; specifically, where they believed the then-dominant Catholic Church had gone wrong.

'Sola' means 'Alone' in Latin.The five Solas are as follows:
Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone
Sola Fide: Faith alone
Sola Gratia: Grace alone
Solus Christus/Solo Christo: Christ Alone
Soli Deo Gloria: For the glory of God alone

Today we'll be looking at Sola Scriptura, or "Scripture alone."

What the Protestants meant by Sola Scriptura was that the Bible is the ultimate and infallible authority for Christian doctrine, and as such, that all Christian teachings and practices should be in line with or derived from the Bible, rather than from Papal decree or from tradition.

It's important to point out that Sola Sciptura isn't necessarily an attack on Popes and traditions, as many Catholics portray it. Sola Scriptura is an attack on unbiblical and anti-biblical traditions, where the teaching of man contradicts the Word of God. Purgatory, Indulgences, Praying to Mary/Saints, and divine papal authority are all examples of unbiblical teachings and traditions, which the Protestants disagreed with.

When the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther was told to recant his beliefs, his reply to the Catholic Church was this: “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

This was the Protestant stance. The Bible, not Popes or tradition, was the ultimate authority by which Christians should live.

But for all the emphasis on scripture, what does the Bible say about Sola Scriptura? Is it taught in the Bible or not? Because if "scripture alone" is not in scripture, then we have a serious logical problem. Let's take a look.

Catholics will be quick to point out that the Bible does not explicitly teach or command Sola Scriptura. So is Sola Sciptura not scriptural then? Someone should make that last sentence into a tongue-twister.

Though the Bible doesn't explicitly teach Sola Scriptura, it does teach it implicitly.

Here's what the Bible says:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

If scripture is God-breathed, then it is infallible and without error, just as God is. Secondly, all that one needs in order to live a life devoted to Christ can be found in the Bible. With the Bible, we are "Complete, equipped for every good work." 2 Peter 1:3 also supports this fact.

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence"

If we have all things that pertain to life and Godliness, and are equipped for every good work through the Bible, then tacking on extra-biblical teachings and practices and saying that they MUST be observed is wrong.

There are two other facts, things the Bible talks about, which support Sola Scriptura. The first one is Man's sin. We are fallible creatures, and as a result of the fall, none of us are righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10). We are often wrong, and just as often, we lie. This is true of all mankind, including Popes, Cardinals, Priests, everyone (Romans 3:23).

The second fact is God's Righteousness. I shouldn't need to point out that God is perfect. He cannot make an error or a contradiction, and He cannot tell a lie (Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19). He is infallible.

What do these two fact tell us? If God is infallible, and Man is fallible, then the situation should be clear. God's Word will always trump man's word. If the two contradict, then God's Word wins all day, every day, and twice on Sunday.

So even though Sola Scriptura is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it is perfectly in line with what the Bible does say.

In summary, Sola Scriptura is biblical, and the Bible is the only basis for Christian doctrine. As such, all Man-made tradition and teachings should be lined up with and tested by Scripture, and if found to be unbiblical, should be abandoned.

Click here to read the next post on Sola Scriptura, which deals with the objections and arguments against it (which, as we'll see, are quite numerous!)

Science Vs. Religion

I've decided that instead of jumping back into my series on the Doctrines of Grace, I'm going to be making a post or two about more general Christian issues and maybe Creationism. You know, to add a little variety, since I've been harping solely on Calvinism for the last ten posts or so. I hate postponing it farther than it already has been, but I figured you guys are kind of getting tired Reformed posts.

Anyway, in this post I'll be tackling a common argument (usually used in defense of the theory of Evolution) that I've seen in a lot of places, primarily online. The topic? Science Vs. Religion.

It's a trap!
The first thing you need to realize when someone starts talking about "Science vs. Religion" is that basically, it's a trap. Don't fall for it. I did in several debates, and it made things a lot harder for me.

So how is it a trap? It's simple. By agreeing to debate "Science Vs. Religion," you basically put yourself in a position where you have to defend all religions, as whole. Which is impossible, and not something a Christian should be doing anyway.

Richard Dawkins takes advantage of this trick in his book The God Delusion.

"... To forestall an inevitable retort to the book, one that would otherwise -- as sure as night follows day -- turn up in a review: 'The God that Dawkins doesn't believe in is a God that I don't believe in either'... I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented"

In essence, you'd have to defend all gods (and the religions built upon them) to reply to Dawkins.
By letting him (or whoever) decree the terms of the debate, you allow yourself to be put in an indefensible position. Unless you're up against an incompetent opponent (which, when I fell for this trap, I was), then you will lose such a debate. The key is to redefine the debate so that you're not defending all religions, but rather, just Christianity.

Faith Vs. Facts
Usually the people pushing this argument will point out that, among other numerous differences, Science is built on facts while Religion is built on (usually blind) faith.

Again, the first thing to do is to redefine the terms of the debate so that you're defending just Christianity. Because in reality, some if not most other religions are built solely on blind faith, with no factual backing... Unlike Christianity.

Christianity is actually built upon lots of facts. Archeology, time and time again, has affirmed the Bible. I won't go over any examples, since you should already know them (though I will probably go over them in future posts, eventually).

Science, on the other hand, relies heavily on faith. Evolution has never been witnessed, all we can do is look at the fossil record and other sources and have faith that all living organisms evolved from a common ancestor. This is the case with all theories: we look at the evidence, and then come to a conclusion based on it. We're not 100% sure that our conclusion is a correct one, but we have faith that it is.

So in reality, Science and Christianity both deal with facts, and both require faith.

So What?
People claiming "Science Vs. Religion" in the Evolution/Creation debate will often do their best to point out all the differences between science and religion. The previous point (faith vs. facts) is a example of this.

But so what if science and religion are different? Math and history are different too, but does that mean we should keep one and do away with the other? Of course not! Both are important. And in the case of science and religion, we can have both.

Now, I'm not saying we should combine science and religion, any more than I think we should combine math and history into one subject. But they should be and are connected, just like math and history. Where would history, with all its important dates and figures, be without math? Similar to how math and history work together, science and religion (should) work together. If scientific evidence points to the existence of a God (which I believe it does), we shouldn't dismiss such evidence as being outside of the realm of science and inside the realm of religion. The two work together, and flow into each other.

In any case, just because science and religion are different, doesn't mean we should discard one of the two. Which brings us to the main problem of the "Science vs. Religion" topic.

Logically Fallacious
Why am I suddenly craving Lucky Charms? Never mind.
The main problem with "Science vs. Religion" is that it's a logical fallacy. Specifically, the "false dilemma" AKA "either-or" fallacy, which fools us into thinking that we have to choose between (usually) two things. When in reality, there may be more options to choose from, including "neither" or "both." And, as mentioned above, my position is that we can have both. In fact, we do have both (or at least, I and many others do).

"Science vs. Religion" is a fallacy. We don't have to choose one or the other: we can have both.

So that's the problem with "Science vs. Religion." It's a tricky argument meant to trap believers, and it's logically unsound to boot.

But that's not the end of the story! All we've done is defended from the attack. You can, if you want to, switch from defensive to offensive mode and turn the tables on your opponent. That's what we'll be doing in the next few points.

Who's the Bad Guy Here?
This first one also comes in handy when going up against the "Religion is violent because the Crusades/Inquisition/HitlerWasAChristian" argument.
Vox Day uses this argument in his book The Irrational Atheist:

"The five major religions of the world…have approximately 4.85 billion adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent of the world’s population in 2007, and they have been around for a collective 11,600 years. During the vast majority of those 116 centuries, the world has not been in any danger of extinction from weapons of any kind, nor has the human race been in serious danger of dying out from pollution, global warming, overpopulation, or anything else. Despite 116 centuries filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of diverse religions, all competing for mindshare, resources, and dominance, the species has not merely survived, it has thrived…In the last sixty years, science has provided a veritable witches’ brew of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices to lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste…"

In essence: between science and religion, science (if anyone) is the bad guy. However, you need to be careful not to go off the deep end and become anti-science. Science and religion are both amoral. It's when bad people use them for immoral purposes that they become forces for evil ("Religion/Science doesn't kill people; people do!").

Where Would You Be Without Me?
One thing you can point out is that, believe it or not, modern-day science owes its existence to Christianity. Indeed, most of the great founders of science as we know it, such as Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo, and Isaac Newton were Christians! Even Charles Darwin was a practicing Christian (though he later renounced his faith).

But that's not all. Dr. Melvin Calvin, a no-religious scientist and a winner of the Nobel Prize for his explanation of Calvin Cycle "dark reactions," says:

"The fundamental conviction that the universe is ordered is the first and strongest tenet [of science]. As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation of modern science"

As Nuclear Physicist and Creationist Dr. Jay L. Wile puts it:

"...early Christians understood that the world was created by a single God who is a Lawgiver, it made sense to them that the universe should run according to specific laws, and those laws should be the same everywhere in the universe. In addition, because they believed they had been given the image of God, they thought it was possible to understand those laws. That’s what prompted the revolution that produced science as we know it today."

So science owes religion. Big time!


So there you have it. "Science vs. Religion." Well, this post has gone on long enough! If you didn't already, you now have the proper tools to counter the "Science vs. Religion" fallacy.

Just remember: the purpose of a debate like this is not to "win" or to be right. You are not trying to destroy the other person. You are trying to convert them, to "give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15), and to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). They are not our enemy.

Author's note: Jonny has never actually craved lucky Charms in his lifetime. Ever.