Shandon L. Guthrie

 

A.  NO GOOD REASON TO DENY SOLA SCRIPTURA
      Tierney first argued that an exclusively infallible source such as the Bible would not yield a variety of denominations housing competing interpretations of it. I then offered four reasons why this is false, and Tierney only attacked one of them -- that multiple denominations do not divide over essential doctrines. He adopts the usual strategy by inflating the significance of the doctrinal divisions. And in his list of such divisions it turns out that only one essential divide may exist, namely baptismal regeneration. Historically, the Anabaptists rose up in defiance of the mainstream view of baptismal regeneration and paved the road for subsequent denials by the Reformation. Although explicit references to baptism in conjunction with salvation abound, it can be argued from the early Church Fathers that baptismal regeneration was usually a necessity of precept rather than a necessity of means. Thus one could be ignorant of baptism or incapable of such and still receive the grace of Christ unto salvation -- a perfectly acceptable Protestant admission. Moreover, there are Christian denominations today that intimate baptismal rites that are in some sense required for the procurement of salvation (think of the Lutheran view of pedobaptism). I guess this could all just be academic since one could argue that adding commands to the Gospel is just overkill by adding additional ryders to a Gospel that already saves. Even if Tierney's laundry list of divisions were considered essential divisions by the Church does not entail that they are, in face, essential divisions -- perhaps another reason to adopt sola Scriptura? Now, nothing was said against the epistemological/ontological distinction (and here Tierney admits, "the existence of denominations doesn’t downplay scripture" which is curious), that this argument is a red herring, and that he is confused about a "final binding interpreter." Even if Tierney rejects the denominational argument, he has three others to conted with.

      He next argued that sola Scriptura is tantamount to Peter's reference to "private interpretation." I argued that this referred to authentic prophecy that is communicated without anyone's personal commentary, a feature consistent with sola Scriptura. Now, Tierney doesn't deny this but, instead, re-defines sola Scriptura as a doctrine of non-external interpretation. And this characterization is false. Sola Scriptura is only about the formal sufficiency of the Bible as the source of doctrinal information in the absence of ongoing revelation. But does Peter's reference imply this? Tierney says no but only offers his impotent re-definition. The truth is, it warns against claiming the authority to append God's prophetic pronouncements -- a signpost of sola Scriptura if there ever was one.

      Thirdly, Tierney argued that a "Tradition of the Apostles" stands in concurrence to the Scripture of Paul's writings. I argued that sola Scriptura is a post-Apostolic doctrine, and Tierney gave two responses. First, he says that there is no biblical indication that this is prescriptively true. Of course I don't argue this; instead, I argued that sola Scriptura is descriptively true in that no competing post-Apostolic "theopneustos" material apart from the Scriptures exists -- that's the burden Tierney must shoulder. Secondly, he says that early Christians would have practiced sola Scriptura if it were true. Well, I can think of several Church Fathers who practiced it including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine. But even if none existed, it would only serve to underscore the fallibility of an extra-biblical doctrinal source. And Tierney fails to understand that just because sources of information are alluded to in the Scriptures doesn't imply their Scriptural level of authority (think of Acts 17:28 where Paul cites anti-Christian Greek "poets" on Mars Hill).

 

B.  GOOD REASONS TO AFFIRM SOLA SCRIPTURA

(1) The Bible affirms that Scripture is the sufficient and exclusive source of infallible doctrinal material.
      Tierney doesn't respond here because he thinks this argument only proves Scripture's infallibility. I'm not sure if he carefully read the initial presentation of the argument because I explicity demonstrated that the etymologies of exertismenos and artios warrant the sufficiency of Scripture and not something like its mere infallibility or purification of "the man of God." So his criticisms here are misplaced. He then says that (1)(b) is false because of the extant Apostolic authorities. Again as a temporally post-Apostolic doctrine, sola Scriptura does not enjoy the concurrence of ongoing revelation.

(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.
      Tierney says that citing Scripture does not make it the only rule of authority. That's certainly true, but I argued that in the absence of new revelation Jesus utilizes already extant Scriptural information. In this light, sola Scriptura is the tool employed.

(3) Scripture is superior to non-biblical tradition in the absence of new revelation.
      Tierney says that Apostolic tradition is not in contradiction to Scripture. This is vacuously true as noted above. What Tierney has to argue here is that in the absence of new revelation there exists just such a tradition. Nothing has been offered yet in defense of an extra-biblical, post-Apostolic "theopneustos" authority.

      Concerning the final three arguments:

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

Tierney still has not addressed them.

      Finally, Tierney has a skewed view of what it means to interpret Scripture. Who else is going to apply interpretive rules to the Scriptures to ascertain their messages? And relying on the historical and textual methods of interpretation is not to speak as an extra-biblical "theopneustos" authority. Therefore, in the absence of good reasons against sola Scriptura and the ongoing confirmation that sola Scriptura is probably true, I see no reason to abandon it.

---