First Rebuttal - Shandon L. Guthrie

Shandon L. Guthrie

A. NO GOOD REASON TO DENY SOLA SCRIPTURA
As far as I am able to tell, there were three arguments advanced in support of denying sola Scriptura. He first complains that an exclusively infallible source such as the Bible would not yield a variety of denominations housing competing interpretations of it. I have four responses here. First, this argument blurs the distinction between epistemological categories and ontological ones. It is incorrect to think that because churches disagree over what they know says nothing about the truth of their source of doctrinal information. Secondly, there is a hidden assumption that multiple denominations are bad. The various denominations only disagree over secondary matters of doctrine such as method of worship, ecclesiastical structure, eschatology, and other non-essential practices and beliefs. Professor of philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Florida, Ronald Nash, comments:

"[S]ome of these issues should never be divisive, since those on each side of the disagreement could be considered orthodox . . . disagreements over such issues as the pretribulational rapture or a premillennial view of Jesus' return should not disrupt our fellowship in Christ." (1)

When it comes to the essential teachings of Scripture, all Christian denominations enjoy unanimity. Thirdly, this is at best a red herring because even if it is established that there are too many divisions of Protestantism it does not follow that sola Scriptura is false. What is the missing premise that shows "Protestantism has divisions" and "sola Scriptura is true" to be logically incompatible? Think of contemporary astrophysics concerning the debate over cosmogenesis. There is no doubt that there existed a Big Bang creation event, but each cosmologist disagrees over the details of the Big Bang singularity. Some posit inflation models and others posit quantum gravity models. But all agree that the hot Big Bang is a pretty good assessment of our universe's cosmogenic origins. Are we to abandon the Big Bang cosmology on differences of secondary importance? Why, to ask the question is to answer it. No one would make such a drastic conclusion. As the scientific Professor at M.I.T. Thomas Kuhn notes, the grounds for abandoning a scientific theory require a "crisis as an appropriate prelude to the emergence of new theories."(2) The differences in Protestantism's history hardly count as crises. Concerning the U.S. Constitution example, it is true that many could stray and create fractal governments. But their error would not be because the Constitution is not an exclusively authoritative document on legislative bodies in the U.S. but, rather, because there are bad interpretations of the Constitution. Finally, I fail to appreciate precisely what Tierney means by all people being the "final binding interpreter." Is this to suggest that interpretations are inherently bad? This would be to elicit a naïveté about textual criticism. Or is he suggesting that all interpreters must be right when in fact they are not? In this case Tierney assumes that the consignment of infallibility lies with the people rather than with Scripture; and if infallibility correctly remains with the Scriptures then this objection is devoid of any teeth.

The second argument proposed by Tierney suggests that sola Scriptura is identical to the private interpretation envisaged by Peter. Actually, precisely the opposite is entailed in Peter's discourse on private interpretation. What Peter was decrying in 2 Peter 1:20-21 was that the origin of prophetic utterances are not to be rooted in the theological or philosophical coloring of the prophet herself. Instead, authentic prophecy is communicated without anyone's personal commentary. And the reason for this admonishment is because an authentic prophecy comes directly from the Holy Spirit, and no one should be in a place to mix words about the Holy Spirit's intentions! In effect, what this turns out to be is a confirmation of the doctrine of sola Scriptura because one could argue that no interpretive body can alter the intentions of the Scriptures. Given this, an extrabiblical source is a secondary interpretive body; Therefore, it follows necessarily that an extrabiblical source cannot alter the intentions of Scripture. What this implies is that the measure of what constitutes a deviation of the intentions of Scripture is the Scripture itself and, voilá, you have sola Scriptura! So, in addition to the six arguments I raised supporting sola Scriptura, we now have a seventh argument from private interpretation.

Thirdly, Tierney argues that a "Tradition of the Apostles" stands in concurrence to the Scripture of Paul's writings. This is no doubt a given since progressive revelation had not been concluded yet. But I had made clear that the doctrine of sola Scriptura is a post-Apostolic doctrine and, hence, any references to divine authorities during the period of inscripturation are irrelevant since it is at least possible that the Apostolic traditions are encapsulated in the finalized Scripture in toto. If it were otherwise we would have to jettison all writings subsequent to Paul, and that would include all four Gospels!! Moreover, in order for sola Scriptura to even be denied by 2 Thess. 2:15 Tierney would have to show that the "word of mouth" or "letter" references are not subsequently inscribed in the Scriptures, and I can't imagine how he can do this.

Since Tierney's case seems unconvincing, let's see if his criticisms disqualify my positive case.

B. GOOD REASONS TO AFFIRM SOLA SCRIPTURA
Amazingly, the only reference to any of my arguments was to one leg of the first one (1[a]) where I argued that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 pointed toward the sufficiency of doctrinal information. Tierney simply made a passing reference to Timothy's need to acquire a proper external interpretation of Scripture which he received from his parents and Paul. But the only response required here is that there exists a fundamental distinction between hermeneutical exegesis and the biblical material itself. Neglecting the former does not indict the dignity of the latter. As Paul says, the Scriptures make Timothy "sufficiently (exertismenos) equipped," not what Tierney says -- that it "was merely one of" such ways.

Tierney simply left the other five arguments out of account: That 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, that Scripture is superior to non-biblical tradition in the absence of new revelation, that Paul admonishes the Corinthians to not go beyond what is written when no new revelation is required, that there was a qualitative significance in grafting a written record rather than retaining an oral transmission, and that the most trustworthy source material is the material closest to the events represented. In the absence of a formidable case against sola Scriptura, I am justified in these five other positive arguments alone that sola Scriptura is true.

END NOTES

1. R. Nash, Great Divides (Colorado: NavPress, 1993), pp. 8-9.

2. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 85.