Quest for a more robust Sola Scriptura

[Unoriginalname]

I have had multiple friends as of late go Catholic or Eastern Orthodoxy, and while I have no interest in converting, what I do have an interest in is having a more robust understanding of the Reformed position of Sola Scriptura. Since I grew up baptist I never really questioned Scripture being the final authority, but the "arguments" I have been taught for it seem to be rather sophomoric. What do we believe about what constitutes scripture? I have heard the "fallible collection of infallible books" phrase quoted repeatedly but it really seems to be either flawed or oversimplified. If we cannot know what constitutes scripture it would seem we would be on shaky ground to argue it is the sole rule of faith. So can anyone point me to any books or polemics that deal with this?

 

[raydixon9]

I've really enjoyed learning from Michael Kruger at Canon Fodder. You could start with this article or this one. There are plenty more articles and books that should help if you want to understand canonical scripture.

 

[Poimen]

Sometimes the oldest resources are the best: (link removed by moderator)

 

[Covenant Joel]

I highly recommend Canon Revisited by Michael Kruger.

 

[Unoriginalname]

Thanks for the suggestions, I just ordered the Canon Revisited. I hope you do not think I am one of those in processes converts merely trolling the forums demanding to be proven incorrect (which sometimes happens). This really comes from having so many people I know convert recently and knowing most of my answers on the canon stink. I never gave much thought to it so in return I don't have many intelligent thoughts on it. I

 

[Hamalas]

Keith Mathison has written a helpful book on the topic that is uniquely useful for at least two reasons. First, it is useful because he specifically addresses both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Second, he also tackles what he calls the "Solo Scriptura" position that exists within many fundamentalists/broadly evangelical positions. You can see the book here: The Shape of Sola Scriptura: Keith A. Mathison: 9781885767745: Amazon.com: Books and get a flavor for his take on "Solo Scriptura" here: Modern Reformation - Articles

 

[py3ak]

Herman Ridderbos' Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures is an excellent book on the NT canon.

 

[KMK]

Herman Ridderbos' Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures is an excellent book on the NT canon.

Be prepared to read in 'low gear'.

 

[jogri17]

Also, this is a more technical and historical book: Vol. 2 "The relationship between Scripture and theology" of Richard Muller's Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. It is important to remember that sola scriptura meant something very different to the Reformers and Post-Reformation (as well as Roman Catholic Tridentine theologians) than it does to most evangelicals today and popular Roman Catholic internet defenders. This volume is extremely technical and will give you a history of the thought behind sola scriptura within the 16th and 17th Centuries.

 

[clark thompson]

It is by faith that we accept the Word as truth.

 

[Unoriginalname]

Herman Ridderbos' Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures is an excellent book on the NT canon.

Be prepared to read in 'low gear'.

Thanks, for the suggestions. I will probably add that to my wish list.

It is by faith that we accept the Word as truth.

While I agree to an extent, that really doesn't answer the question of how we know what constitutes the books of the Bible or what is the theological basis for Sola Scriptura. My struggle is to articulate a position that accounts for how we know what is the canon and not undermine the position that scripture is what is the final authority.

 

[MW]

Before plunging into in-depth discussions, it might be best to get solid training in the essentials by going through one of the commentaries on chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession. Robert Shaw's Exposition is highly recommended.

 

[Peairtach]

The ESV Study Bible articles are very good on the OT and NT canon.

This is quite good on the NT Canon:
Why Twenty Seven?: How Can We Be Sure That We Have the Right Books in the New Testament?: Brian H. Edwards: 9780852346501: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Unoriginalname]

Before plunging into in-depth discussions, it might be best to get solid training in the essentials by going through one of the commentaries on chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession. Robert Shaw's Exposition is highly recommended.

Thank you for that suggestion.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

That is an awfully large extract from what I presume is a copyrighted volume; I saw no "used with permission" notice by the author. If it is one's own website this is an individual call but the moderators are not comfortable with linking to such things when the permission to use is unclear. I have removed the link.

Sometimes the oldest resources are the best:

 

[Poimen]

That is an awfully large extract from what I presume is a copyrighted volume; I saw no "used with permission" notice by the author. If it is one's own website this is an individual call but the moderators are not comfortable with linking to such things when the permission to use is unclear. I have removed the link.

Sometimes the oldest resources are the best:

My apologies. In any case, if the brother gets his hands on Turretin's Elenctic Institutes and reads the volume on scripture, he will be greatly edified.

 

[ZackF]

Some basic apologetic stuff at James White's site is helpful too.

 

[RamistThomist]

If we cannot know what constitutes scripture it would seem we would be on shaky ground to argue it is the sole rule of faith. So can anyone point me to any books or polemics that deal with this?

I realize that seems problematic, but here me out:

Saying it is a fallible collection points not to the content of Scripture, but to the men who collected it into one volume. If you grant it is an infallible collection, and you then acknowledge that the early fathers were involved, I don't know how one can avoid the claim that there is a certain infallibility in the fathers.

I have no problem saying we can "know" but not with super absolute certainty, the kind of which transcends the nature of human knowledge. Even Jesus in his incarnate state didn't hve super-absolute-knowledge of everything. If that's true of Jesus, how much more is it of us?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I find these arguments about the "weakness" of Sola Scriptura to be weak in themselves because they presume that there's a solution by simply adding another infallible authority or authorities to the mix.

Let's take Abraham, as an example. What authority was he to appeal to, outside of what he received from God, to validate that God's Word to Him was the sole rule for faith and life?

The man had an encounter with the living God. It was not an encounter with a set of propositions that he decided to lend credible authotiriy to it and thereby lend it real authority.

The point with the Scriptures is that they are breathed out by God. They are, by their very nature, authoritative because they come from the mouth of God. Nobody lends to them credibility or authority. God needs no man to grant them status as His Word.

These questions arise primarily because people think in this way: How can I, by my autonomous reason, take in the facts of the case and decide what I'm going to lend ultimate authority to?

Or it will proceed along these lines: How can the Church, using its own historic and philosophic investigation, decide what Scriptures it is going to lend infallible authority to?

The persons who start in such a manner have already revealed they don't believe the Scriptures. Why? Because it is the Word of God that creates the Church to begin with. God called Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and made them a people by His Word. He established the Church in the desert and in the land and governed them by His Word.

People like to assume that the Church creates the Word but it is the other way around.

There is also an underlying problem of "how do I know" that belies unbelief that the Spirit is not active in the Church. People either don't believe the Spirit is at all at work or, if He is, He is only interested in personal salvation and not in establishing people in the Word. He could not possibly play any role in speaking to His Bride! No, the Bride of Christ, by many folks' schema, receives no help from the Spirit in order to recognize the voice of Her Bridegroom.

Let the detractors come. God, alone, breathes out His Word and He has not left the Church without the Spirit in order to help her know what the Word is as well as to be illumined by it. Rome can sputter blasphemies all she wants about being an infallible source but, until she demonstrably proves that God ever revealed to men that He would keep His Church from error, then I remain fixed upon the point that He has preserved from error. It's faith in God and not in men. If that's not intellectually satisfying then I think the problem is not one of truth but one of trust.