August 05, 2023—Answers to a study guide on an essay by Matthew Barrett
This is the third post in a series about the doctrine of scripture:
Matthew Barrett wrote an essay on TGC titled “The Sufficiency of Scripture”.
Here is the definition and summary given by Barrett:
Scripture is sufficient in that it is the only inspired, inerrant, and therefore final authority for Christians for faith and godliness, with all other authorities being subservient to Scripture.
The sufficiency of Scripture is a doctrine challenged on multiple fronts. Ever since the Reformation, Rome challenged Scripture’s sufficiency in claiming that an infallible tradition and papal magisterium was necessary to provide the correct interpretation of Scripture. In response, the Reformers asserted that Scripture is a sufficient authority for all things pertaining to faith and godliness, not needing to appeal to another authority. However, this does not mean that Scripture functions alone apart from any other source or authority; rather, all other authorities serve under Scripture, while Scripture rules over them as the final and inspired authority from God.
These are my answers to a study guide given by my pastor.
No, Barrett states
With that in mind, the Christian need not fear the use of extrabiblical sources. In fact, the Christian should have no hesitancy learning from, appealing to, and utilizing extrabiblical sources.
Barrett contrasts sola scriptura with nuda scriptura, the view that scripture is the only rule of faith to the exclusion of all other sources*. Evidently that view was found among the Anabaptists and radical reformers, and appears in modern day Fundamentalism. It appears that nuda scriptura is appealing to people who wish to emphasize the role of the Bible in daily life. However, it can lead to confusion about what exactly another “authority” or “tradition” might be. For example one might think that just because one’s church does not belong to a denomination, that church is therefore free from the theological influence of tradition. And this can lead people to elevate the position and authority of traditions within that individual church. Because if people think everything that church does and believes arises from the Bible and from the Bible alone, then things which are in fact mere tradition and artifacts of history begin to capture people’s consciences.
Sola scriptura, on the other hand, explicitly allows room for other authorities to function with scripture. But in a way that they serve and are corrected by scripture. The Apostles’ Creed, for example, is a wonderful distillation of truths arising from scripture. And it is also true that the Apostles’ Creed is not immune to critical thinking by interpreters of scripture—for example, what does it mean that “Christ descended into hell [and arose three days later]” when he promised the repentant thief “today you will be with me in paradise” Luke 23:43 (and arose three days later)? Sola scriptura empowers you to answer that question from scripture with a free conscience.
I also find it helpful to think about the role of General Revelation in relation to Special Revelation. Both are revelation from God. And if Special Revelation is true because God is true, then General Revelation is also just as true. Therefore, General Revelation is infallible. Therefore it’s legitimate to reason and draw conclusions from General Revelation, just as we do from scripture. However, we ought to be careful by remembering that General Revelation is less specific than scripture in many matters. And so we ought to reject any conclusions drawn from General Revelation that contradict necessary deductions from scripture. For example, even though a large body of science claims that the earth is many billions of years old, the Christian is more than free to reject that inference on the grounds of good and necessary deductions from scripture. And at the same time even people without access to the bible are obligated to believe that there is an eternal uncreated being—if anything exists and is an effect then by deduction there is an Uncaused Cause, and everyone knows that they their self exist, and only exist contingently. And so we see that good and necessary deductions can be drawn from sources other than scripture and can rightly bind people’s consciences, and scripture stands supreme.
Barrett says:
Rome challenged Scripture’s sufficiency, claiming that an infallible tradition and papal magisterium is also needed to provide the one, true interpretation of Scripture. This conclusion stems from their assumption that tradition is a second infallible source or conduit of divine revelation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, beginning in paragraph 75, the following things:
- Christ commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel
- The Gospel was handed on in two ways: orally (leading to Sacred Tradition), and in writing (as Sacred Scripture and in later writings contributing to Sacred Tradition)*
- The authority to preach the Gospel was passed along through generations of bishops as successors to the Apostles*
- Both of these avenues of teaching preserve and perpetuate the Gospel and together are a “living transmission” called Sacred Tradition*
- Both Scripture and Tradition are compatible, bound closely together, and inform one another in a dynamic flowing way*
- Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence*
The Catholic Church finds the ability for herself to keep Scripture and Tradition in sync. In the above section of the Catechism she claims the help of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, paragraph 85 says:The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
One could easily imagine that over time any teaching not committed to writing for preservation would tend to be corrupted and then lost, and any later doctrines built on such a foundation would be suspect. In Jesus’ day the Pharisees had so elevated their own tradition (which became corrupt over time) that it rose in practice to the position of supreme authority because it was their lens for authoritatively interpreting scripture, resulting in their own damnation (Matthew 23). And so Rome is correct to identify that it is dangerous to depart from scripture. The Catholic Church seeks shelter by appealing to two things: the Holy Spirit who keeps the Church from corruption; and to the inherited ability to tell people what the bible really says.Logically, with these safeguards in place there would be no possibility for Sacred Tradition to contradict Sacred Scripture in the eyes of lay people. Lay people are not allowed to understand Sacred Scripture in any other way than is delivered to them by the Church. Similarly, the teachers of the lay people are not allowed to teach anything from Sacred Scripture except what accords with their current understanding of Sacred Tradition. Instead, those teachers are excommunicated who contradict teachings of the Church.
To assert these things as true, however, is question begging. How can a person know that the Catholic Church actually possesses the authority to infallibly interpret scripture? You have to accept the conclusion in order to believe the premise.
And it’s my opinion that the Catholic Church has tied herself up in knots trying to maintain this over the centuries.
The view of the Reformers stands in stark contrast. The Reformers recognized that God’s word has no equal, and that the bible is God’s word while other streams of teaching are not, even though other streams of teaching do often overlap significantly with the bible. Scripture alone bears the privilege of making people wise for salvation; other streams of gospel teaching are only profitable inasmuch as they align with scripture.
Consequences of sola scriptura include the following:
- The ability for lay people to recognize mere traditions of men
- The ability for anyone to be freed from the burden they impose
- The ability to rest in Christ and simply trust him, knowing that no other means of salvation will arise in the future, and nothing else will ever be required for our justification
Modern Christians can learn something from the Reformation with regard to sola scriptura. Barrett gives these examples:
- Personal experience ought not act as a sieve which sifts scripture
- Pragmatism and sensitivity to the culture’s felt needs ought to yield to scripture
- Scripture ought to be front and center in all songs and sermons
This makes me think of how people tend to judge the continuation of certain Spiritual Gifts. On the one hand some will point to personal experience and say “I’ve seen them in action”, and that is the reason they believe it. This fails to let scripture judge the situation. But on the other hand some will construct an elaborate argument from scripture for why they cannot possibly be happening today, and the argument is full of statements like “and wouldn’t it make sense if …”, yet they seek to bind people’s consciences with this conclusion. This elevates a tradition of man insofar as such conclusions are not necessary conclusions from scripture. I’m not prepared to engage the issue much deeper than that, but it comes to mind.This also reminds me of how contemporary music tends to be introduced into churches. I engaged a little bit with this in Introducing Contemporary Worship Into a Traditional Church. I think that very often the motivation is to find a form of worship in church that appeals to the culture outside the church. But we really don’t have to worry too much about what appeals to the outside culture. Instead we need to just honor God with our worship, and let the culture think whatever they want about us. If we seem backward to the culture but God is pleased then who cares?