Sola Scriptura? In what manner does the Bible define itself?

Great Debates
1

This is one that bothered me when I was a more traditionally Bible-believing Christian lo so many years ago.

From Wikipedia:

As a lad, the churches I was raised in didn’t specifically use the phrase “Sola Scriptura” but they certainly would have affirmed the doctrine described above. Indeed, one of the churches I was raised in would have gone further and would have affirmed the strengthened doctrine that:

The first version says the Bible contains everything necessary. The second version says the information contained in the Bible is not only necessary, but sufficient.

It’s the combination of necessity and sufficiency that my objection is most directly aimed at. But I’ll say something about the mere necessity condition as well.

Suppose the information contained in the Bible is sufficient for salvation.

Now suppose someone believes everything in the Bible but also believes that the information in the Bible is insufficient for salvation. Hence they believe there is additional extra-biblical information required for salvation.

Such a person, according to anyone who affirms either version of Sola Scriptura, would not be saved.

Let’s say that’s correct–that such a person isn’t saved.

Then we must (if we share certain basic assumptions common to all believers in Sola Sccriptura) conclude that the belief that the Bible is sufficient is itself necessary for Salvation.

But, by Sola Scriptura, this means that the doctrine of Biblical sufficiency for salvation is itself contained (or at least implied) in the Bible.

This, in turn, is logically equivalent to the following (together with some assumptions held in common by everyone who believes in Sola Scriptura):

“For each of the books of the Bible listed in Frylock’s NRSV (except the apocrypha–we’ll maybe say something about that in a moment) there is a version of that text–call it V(t) where t is the book of Frylock’s NRSV under consideration–such that the collection of all V(x) for each x==one of the books in Frylock’s NRSV is itself necessary and sufficient for salvation.”

Which, in plainer English, means “Genesis is part of the work necessary and sufficient for salvation, Exodus is part of the work, Leviticus is part of the work, …, Jude is part of the work, and Revelation is part of the work.”

In other words, if Sola Scriptura is true, then the Bible must define itself somewhere.

So–how does it do this? How does the Bible define itself?

This is a problem, I think, even for the weaker version of Sola Scriptura listed first above, since given the truth of Sola Scriptura, it appears that Sola Scriptura is itself necessary for salvation. (Maybe not, though.)

I’m not worried about the Apocrypha, because the churches that accept them as scripture also do not affirm Sola Scriptura.

TLDR: Where in the Bible say that the books from Genesis through Revelation found in my copy of the NRSV, minus the Apocrypha, contain all the information you need for salvation?

2

Let’s boil it down even simpler: Just how do we know which books are part of the Bible? That was all decided by church tradition to begin with, which Luther asserted wasn’t a valid source of theology.

The closest I know of is a passage which says that scripture should not be subtracted from or added to. But that’s problematic, since the passage in question is in the Old Testament. Which means that the Sola Scriptura types have already added considerably to scripture, against the prohibition of that passage.

3

That verse–which is actually from near the end of Revelation–is what was pointed out to me when I was a kid (in the Church of Christ) but it’s not enough because the reference in the passage is clearly not the Bible but rather the book of Revelation.

I came back to the thread, btw, to note that I was wrong to worry about the distinction between the “everything necessary” and “fully sufficient” versions of Sola Scriptura. “X is the only necessity for Y” implies “X is sufficient for Y.”* So the “weaker” version of Sola Scriptura actually implies the “stronger.” Oops my bad.

*I think?! But laying down a proof for that has proved more than I could spit out in five minutes so I’ll just let it rest there.

4

In rational-land, yes. But there are people who believe the KJB is itself divinely inspired.

5

Actually there are several places where people are warned not to change “God’s words.” Revelation is only the last and most explicit of these.
[ul]
[li]Deuteronomy 4:2 - Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. [/li][li]Deuteronomy 12:32 - See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.[/li][li]Proverbs 30:5-6 - Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. [/li][li]Revelation 22:18-19 - I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.[/li][/ul]
But I agree with you, they were all intended to refer to just the contents of the single book in which they were found (or to already existing Torah in the case of Proverbs). The Deuteronomist had no idea that his work would be collected with say the Pauline letters. And if anyone had told him, I imagine he would have been horrified.

6

Related query:

Where online (if anywhere) can one ask a question like this and get a decent, interesting discussion of the topic populated by people actually invested in the views under question?

Is there such a place?

7

It would be bad taste (and possibly a violation of Straight Dope rules) to give specific links…but…aye, there are other discussion boards that come close, at least, to the Straight Dope’s high caliber of intelligence, inquiry, philosophy, thought, and debate. I’ve had the joy of participating in…um…well, two of them…

Really is true; you can find anything on the internet! Some of it is even good!

Trinopus

8

I didn’t know we’re not supposed to name other forums on the SDMB!

Can you PM me then?

9

I don’t see why.

We have a general policy to discourage board wars, so we do not want folks posting on other boards and coming back to snicker about the exchanges and we do not want posters recruiting others to either attack other boards or to attack the SDMB, but simply noting a message board on which a particular discussion might occur does not appear to be a violation of either our rules or our general practices. (There have been allusions to the Snopes board or the Randi board, from time to time.)

Of course, this pre-supposes that this board has gotten past its juvenile beginnings so that if a board were mentioned, we would expect that Dopers would not flock to that board only to be confrontational. A break of that expectation might lead to more explicit rules, as well as sanctions against those who behaved intemperately.

[ /Moderating ]

10

tomndebb: thank you for the clarification. I was thinking it might be a bit “tacky” to give a shout-out to another nifty discussion board – sort of like being in a Denny’s restaurant and talking about how good the food is at Coco’s! Anyway, I’ll just say that the snopes discussion boards are quite good…

re the actual topic, I had a friend who was in The Way Ministry for a time, and they had some formal analysis on how the Bible interprets itself. The most obvious is “context.” Look at what’s happening. Thus, for instance, lots of people misinterpret Jesus’ saying “I come not to bring peace but the sword.” It’s clear, in context, that it is a metaphor for the church dividing society, believers apart from unbelievers. It isn’t a defense of warfare!

The second method was “comparable quotes.” If you’ve unclear on something in Matthew, read Mark. Read Kings, and Chronicles. The Bible often clarifies itself.

A third method was looking stuff up in the original language. We’ve probably all heard by now that “You shall not kill” means something closer to “You shall not murder.”

All of this is perfectly valid scholasticism. It works as well for Dostoevsky as for the Bible!

However, the fourth method, heavily emphasized by my friend, was “spiritual inspiration.” You have to pray, and God will grant understanding. He said this was the most important method, and that without it, there can be no understanding.

I found that rather unfortunate, as it doesn’t work for me… I’ve asked God for understanding, and gotten no answer.

Trinopus (may be my deodorant?)