Shandon L. Guthrie

 

      Mr. Tierney did exactly what I challenged him to do: he presented both a positive case for his denial of sola Scriptura and a case against my arguments. In the final analysis, however, I think that none of his arguments and criticisms proved valid. And our Question-and-Answer sessions only revealed that there lies a difficulty in how Catholics and Protestants approach the authenticity of Scripture. Keep in mind that Tierney has to deal with the two avenues of how one can authenticate Scripture in the 21st century: (i) via a justified true belief about the Spirit's witness, and (ii) via textual/historical criticism. As to the original debate, let us review that now.

A.  NO GOOD REASON TO DENY SOLA SCRIPTURA
      Tierney initially argued that the existence of Protestant denominations warrants the dismissal of sola Scriptura as a reliable doctrine. I retorted with several counter-responses why this is false -- and Tierney even admitted that "the existence of denominations doesn’t downplay scripture." It seems that Tierney has since abandoned this criticism. Secondly, Tierney has argued that 2 Peter's forbiddance of "private interpretation" discounts sola Scriptura since this doctrine allegedly advocates it. What proved interesting here was that this passage actually supports the doctrine. Remember the 3-step counterargument I gave:

p1: No interpretive body can alter the intentions of the Scriptures.

p2: An extrabiblical source is a secondary interpretive body.

C: Therefore, an extrabiblical source cannot alter the intentions of Scripture.

Since sola Scriptura derides the attempt of an interpretive body (external to the Scriptures) to interpret biblical language, then the argument becomes rather clear that no extra-biblical source can replace the direct line of communication between believer and Scripture! Finally, Tierney argued that there exists extra-biblical, oral, source material that is theopneustos. During the Q & A sessions, he begged me to address the mysterious prophecy of Enoch in Jude. I explained that there is no reason to think that the doctrinal information is not already recorded elsewhere in Scripture. Therefore, none of these arguments grant any compelling reasons to dismiss sola Scriptura.

 

B.  GOOD REASONS TO AFFIRM SOLA SCRIPTURA

(1) The Bible affirms that Scripture is the sufficient and exclusive source of infallible doctrinal material.
      I would like to make clear that in the absence of either an Apostolic tradition apart from Scripture or a post-Apostolic authoritative body of interpretation, and no good reason to deny sola Scriptura, I am justified in accepting it. The flow of the debate here has been quite enlightening. You see, Tierney doesn't contest the Greek terms used (exertismenos and artios) in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 as "sufficient" but argues that 2:19-21 and James 1 use stronger terms of sufficiency -- making my view inconsistent. I already responded to this by noting that 2 Timothy 2 uses euchreston which just denotes profitability and not sufficiency; it is also important to add that 2 Tim. 2 is for the profitability in being made righteous whereas 3:17 is about "all Scripture" being useful and sufficient for doctrine (Greek: didaskalian) which ultimately leads to "every good work." And James 1:4 is no better since it also does not address Scripture but addresses being ethically maximized or complete (holokleroi) in one's Christian walk. Therefore, sola Scriptura is upheld by (1)(a) - (1)(c).

(2) Jesus' statements and Apostolic references to "It is written . . . " in deciding doctrinal issues indicates the exalted position of Scripture in the absence of new revelation.
(3) Scripture is superior to non-biblical tradition in the absence of new revelation.
(4) Paul admonishes the Corinthians to not go beyond what is written when no new revelation is required.
(5) There was a qualitative significance in grafting a written record rather than retaining an oral transmission.

      What the criticisms of Tierney concerning these four arguments boil down to is that these do not discredit an infallible interpreter of Scripture. But, as I have pointed out, they are signposts of preferring the written over the oral in cases where no new revelation is necessary. And Tierney has only suggested that it leads to material sufficiency instead of formal sufficiency. However, consider Tierney's comments:

". . . the Church has never stated we accept ongoing revelation. So if something claims to be Tradition, it is tested against what already is Revealed in the Word of God."

This statement amounts to denying any formal dependence on anything but Scripture as it is the only extant source of infallible, doctrinal information.
Secondly, he has argued against these four arguments I raised that Paul must refer only to the 27 New Testament books. But I explained that the significance of these arguments do not demand that one assume such. The thrust of these arguments is to establish the preference and highest regard the Scriptures bear in the absence of the need for futher revelation. What this means is that when contemporary queries arise about Christian doctrine, we should be expected to employ the same technique of preferring and regarding the highest the Scriptures as the source of doctrinal information. This amounts to the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

(6) The most trustworthy source material is the material closest to the events represented.

      Finally, Tierney is right to suggest that any extra-biblical source of doctrinal information, including an alleged source of infallible doctrinal interpretation, would discount this argument. In these cases then the most trustworthy source material would no longer be the Scriptures since we would have material directly from a contemporary channel to God. But any mere claim to fufill one of these two roles would a priori have an initial improbability when compared to going to the Scriptures directly since they are already established as authentic. And since Tierney was unable to present a compelling case for an alternative source, then this argument remains to be an important factor.

      As I read the words of Jesus' contemporaries I found a sphere of truth that no religious institution or figurehead could impart. The words of Jesus spoke to my heart directly from the original writings commissioned by God. And I believe that you can have this life-changing experience for yourself by simply responding to the written testimony preserved by God (John 17:3).

---