Sola Scriptura and the Canon Conundrum

One theme I have returned to several times on this blog is the issue the question of how one comes to know the true content of the Christian faith.  This question forms one of the few – or perhaps the only – bright dividing lines between Catholics and "Protestants".

The “Protestant” position is commonly known as Sola Scriptura, which means “Scriptura Alone”.   While people differ on the details, Sola Scriptura usually entails the following:

“The Bible is the only infallible and authoritative source of Christian doctrine.  It is sufficient on its own to deliver all the truths of the Christian religion.  Conversely, there can be no binding Christian doctrine which is not taught by Scripture." 

A Catholic would disagree with that.  Instead, he would say:

"It is true that the Bible is the inspired word of God.  However, the Christian faith contains things which are not explicitly taught in the text of the Bible.  Likewise, it is necessary to have an official interpreter and teacher of the faith which is authorized by God pass on and preserve the Christian religion.”  

Today I want to take a look at one of the simplest and most powerful arguments against Sola Scriptura.  It is an argument which uses the Bible itself to show the impossibility and incoherence of “Bible Alone”.

I call it “The Canon Conundrum”.



Whence Cometh the Table of Contents?

We will start by looking one of the implications of Sola Scriptura.

When looking at anything purported to be a Christian doctrine, one has to ask;

"What is my source for this knowledge?"  

Under Sola Scriptura, the only allowable answer is exegesis from the inspired text.  If the source of the doctrine falls anywhere outside the inspired text, the proposition cannot be an authoritative Christian doctrine.

That means the following sources are off limits:

• The consensus of early Christians.
• Private revelations from God.
• The pronouncements of bishops' councils.

As a consequence, the principle of Sola Scriptura would be fatally wounded if you could find a doctrine which is critical to the Christian faith but is not derived from exegesis of the sacred text.

And wouldn't you know it... there is one such example. 

Ask yourself this:  How do you know which books are inspired and belong in the Bible?  Any of them.  How did you acquire that bit of knowledge?

The list of books - known as the Canon of Scripture - is not given to us in the text of the Bible itself.  It comes to us through the consensus of early Christians, which was then refined and codified by various councils of Bishops.  Then the knowledge got handed on from generation to generation.

In other words, it is a tradition.


Authoritative or Not?

This creates a dilemma for adherents to Sola Scripture.  Is the Canon authoritative or not?  Are Christians bound to believe in all 27 books of the New Testament?  Or can they pick and choose?

If the Canon is not authoritative, it would become an area of Christian liberty.  That means Christians would be able to select for themselves which books they think are inspired.

So do you dislike something in the letter to the Romans?  Easy solution.  Remove it from your Bible.  Who is to say you can't?

On the other hand, one could say the Canon is authoritative.  But then that person would be regarding an extra-Biblical tradition as authoritative over Christians.  This would contradict the principle of Sola Scriptura - forcing one to abandon it.

So on one horn of this dilemma you lose the Sola.   One the other horn you lose the Scriptura.  In either case, Sola Scriptura is scuttled.

I have found there are three attempts to escape the dilemma.  Let's look at all three.



Escape Attempt 1: Appeal to Circular References


The first escape attempt involves trying to establish the Canon of Scripture from internal references within the Bible.  In other words, one tries to rebuild the Canon by showing how the canonicity of each book is confirmed in another book.  This creates a case for the Bible being “self-authenticating”.

So, for instance, it can be shown that Paul references Luke's Gospel as Scripture [1Timothy 5:18 / Luke 10:7].  It can also be shown that Peter references Paul's letters at Scripture [2 Peter 3:14-16]. 

There are three problems with this approach.


Not Even Close:

First, these attempts can never establish the entire Canon of the Bible.  At most these efforts get you Luke's Gospel and Paul's letters.  That's only half of the New Testament.  Everything else remains unexplained.   

Most notably, 2Peter is among those unexplained books - which calls the whole attempt into question.

Circular Logic:

The second problem is even more basic.  This is a classic case of attempting to use circular logic.  You cannot claim that a document is inspired just because it says so.  You would be assuming the very thing you're trying to prove.

Why Not Elsewhere?

Lastly, one has to ask why divine self-authentication doesn't work elsewhere.

Suppose I gave you two pieces of paper - one titled 'A' and another titled 'B' - and upon each was a note saying the other was inspired by God.  Wouldn't the logic of self-authentication mean those papers are inspired by God?

Escape Attempt 2: Appeal to Early Consensus

The second escape attempt is to appeal to the universal consensus of early Christians.  An interlocutor will say:

"We don't need Councils and Bishops to establish the Canon.  The Christian world has always been unanimous about what belonged in the Bible."

Once again, there are a few problems.


Sacrificing Scriptura:

First, this escape attempt relies on a premise which is only partly correct.  It is true that the early Christians came to a quick consensus on the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul's letters.  However, as I have shown [elsewhere], the canonicity of some remaining books were still being debated as late as 325AD.

So this escape attempt would not establish the whole Bible or even the whole New Testament.  At best it would give you a two-tiered Canon.  There would be some you could be confident are inspired, but then others you could not be sure about.


Sacrificing the Sola:

However, there is an even bigger problem with this escape attempt.

Remember, the principle of Sola Scriptura leaves you unable to appeal to anything other than exegesis of Scripture for establishing authoritative Christian doctrines.

This doesn't just mean eschewing the authority of councils and bishops.  It means you cannot appeal to anything outside the words in the sacred text... which would disallow using the consensus of early Christians.

Thus, this escape attempt boils down to trying to defend Sola Scriptura by using the very thing it says you cannot have ... authoritative Christian tradition.

Escape Attempt 3:  Appeal to Personal Revelation

The third escape attempt asserts that the knowledge of the Canon is not derived from tradition OR councils.  Rather, it is received through direct revelation from God to the individual Christian.

This usually takes the form of a supposed infallible intuition by which the Holy Spirit empowers all “true Christians” to intuitively know when he or she is reading something inspired by God. The first person to propose this theory was John Calvin, who wrote in his Institutes of Religion:

"Scripture must be confirmed by the witness of the Spirit. Thus may its authority be established as certain.  And it is a wicked falsehood that its credibility depends on the judgment of the church.  […] If we desire to provide in the best way for our consciences, we ought to seek our conviction in a higher place than human reasons, judgments or conjectures; that is, in the secret testimony of the Spirit."  - Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 7

There are two ways to respond to this final escape attempt.


Disproved by History:

First, this theory is disproved by history.  As I just mentioned above, the early Christians were conflicted about the exact content of the Scriptural Canon – Old Testament and New - until the end of the fourth century.

How could that be the case if “true Christians” are supposed to have a supernatural intuition of which books are inspired?  What we should  have seen in the historical record was complete unanimity with discrepancies only occurring among groups of heretics.

So if all “true Christians” have this ability… where were all the "true Christians” in the first four hundred years of Christianity?   

Sacrificing the Sola… Again:

With that said, the more important thing to point out about this escape attempt is that it still breaks the rules of Sola Scriptura.

Again, the system is supposed to rely upon Scripture ALONE  for the SOLE  source of Christian truths.  There is no room in that epistemology for private illumination from the Holy Spirit. 

So this boils down to yet another attempt to defend Sola Scriptura using the very thing it is supposed to disallow. 

There is No Escape:

Let's draw this to a close.

I got started talking about Sola Scriptura in a post about the Communion of Saints.  Some people object to the communion of Saints because they believe it is not taught in the Bible.  In other words, the person objects to the Communion of Saints because it conflicts with Sola Scriptura.

One rejoinder to that argument is to show that Sola Scriptura is false.  And while there are different ways of doing this, the Canon Conundrum is the simplest and most direct way.  A person who confronts this argument is forced to acknowledge there can be authoritative Christian doctrine which is not derived from the Bible.