Problems with Sola Scriptura

"Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.  Sola Scriptura demands that only those doctrines to be admitted or confessed are doctrines found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture."

This is one of the foundational principles of the reformation and yet, it cannot possibly be God's plan for Christianity.

Here's why:

• The first book of the New Testament is 1st Thessalonians and was written around AD 52.   The resurrection occurred around AD 33 or so, meaning that the first Christians had not even a single writing from the New Testament upon which to base their faith for the first 15 - 20 years.

• The last books of the New Testament to be written were penned between AD 95-110.  So, again, before early Christians could go to the Bible to find the doctrines necessary for salvation, they had to wait almost 70 or so years after Jesus died just to have the texts (that, again, contained everything they needed to know for salvation) written.

• The first recorded list of proposed books for the New Testament came about in AD 130-140.  Marcion of Sinope, rejecting entirely the "God of the Old Testament" and the Jewish Scriptures, proposed a list of books that he regarded as fully authoritative.  His list included 10 Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Luke (devoid of any reference to Old Testament Scriptures).  It's interesting that if Sola Scripture were truly the foundational doctrine the reformers suggested, why did it take so long before someone actually proposed a list of books?  If this was truly what believers needed as a true guide--the only guide--then why did even a faulty, scant version of this list take so long to create?

• The complete Canon of Scripture wasn't compiled until almost AD 400.  While there were many lists of "the books of the New Testament" these lists (as we just demonstrated) were often incomplete or, in some cases, included extra works that were later considered "apocryphal" (the Gospel of Thomas, for example).  At any rate, the complete list of New Testament books that we possess today wasn't agreed upon by the entire Church until roughly AD 400, meaning that for nearly 370 years, Christians were unable to know that what they were studying was something that could even by rights be called Scripture. 

• Once the canon was compiled, the production of Bibles was still time-consuming and costly.  It's estimated that the production of a single Bible in the early years of Christianity up until the invention of the printing press could cost anywhere from 1-3 years' wages.  For one Bible.  If Sola Scriptura and the possession of a Bible by every believer was God's plan, why did God wait so long to inspire the printing press?  Why would God create a system for knowing Him--Sola Scriptura--that couldn't be fully implemented until the invention of the printing press?

• Even after the printing press, not everybody could read.  The internet has made available--at our fingertips--books written in all kinds of languages.  Hungarian for example.  I purchased a Hungarian Bible a few years ago for a friend.  When it was delivered, I discovered upon opening it, that I couldn't read it.  The mere availability of the book in Hungarian did not--obviously--instill within me the ability to read Hungarian.  Likewise, illiterate people with a book, even if that book is a Bible, still can't read it.  The words still look like gibberish and scratchings.  So, for Sola Scriptura to make any sense as a foundational principle for knowing God, we would need, not just the printing press and readily available Bibles, but also the ability to read (and understand) the written word.  Even today, we don't have a universal ability to read and comprehend.  So, once again, God's system--if it is His, which begins to seem more and more doubtful--is flawed.

Now, it could be argued that Sola Scriptura doesn't so much mean that we need to, each one of us, possess a Bible of our own.  Rather, it could mean that we simply look to the Bible as the source for every doctrine we believe in.  If the doctrine's not there, (explicitly or deducible by "valid" logic), then we shouldn't believe it.  

Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with this reasoning as well:

• Who determines what's "valid logic" and what's not?  I know this sounds silly and we're all tempted to say "clearly, valid logic is 'X' and clearly 'Y' is not valid."  But if it were really that easy, then there would be no disagreements in the world, right?  Look at politics.  Two sides can look at the same issue and see "valid" logic in opposite determinations.  Religion is another topic that necessarily produces wide-ranging opinions and conclusions.  Often, what's valid logic to one party is invalid to another.  Which brings us back to the question:  who determines what's a valid teaching and what's not?  Is it the majority?  What if the majority changes over time?  Does the truth then change with it?  Clearly, that can't be the case.  Yet, if every believer has the right and authority and duty to examine the scriptures using "valid" logic, we're going to end up with a wide-range of opinions as to what the Truth really is.

• Who determines what's explicitly taught?  OK, so maybe extrapolating the teachings of the Bible that aren't clearly taught is complicated as we saw above.  But what about those things explicitly taught?  Surely, those are clear and beyond question?  Not really.  Look at baptism as just one example.  Some groups believe that baptism is clearly taught in scripture as necessary for salvation.  Other groups believe that baptism is a "sign and seal" of a Christian's new commitment to Christ.  Basically, it's a good thing to do, but not necessary.  Still other groups believe that baptism by water is not even necessary as a "sign and seal"--instead, we are baptized by the Spirit.  To take it still further, ask a wide range of Christians who the Bible teaches should be baptized and you'll receive an equally wide range of answers.  Some will say infants.  Others will say only believers who've repented.  Ask again about the method and you'll hear immersion, sprinkling, no water necessary and so on.  And after all of these answers, it will be argued that the Bible is explicitly clear.

• Where does the Bible say such a thing?  No matter how we scour the Bible, we're never going to find a command in the Bible that says that the Bible (or scripture) alone should be used to determine all of the doctrine we believe as Christians.  Basically, the Bible doesn't proclaim the doctrine of the Bible alone.  This is a problem because how can we adopt the doctrine of "the Bible alone" if the Bible doesn't teach us to adopt the doctrine of "the Bible alone".  The Bible says that scripture is important and necessary, but it doesn't say that scripture is all we need.  Instead, we read in 1 Timothy 3:15:  "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."  (Notice, the Bible says that the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church of the living God, not scripture).

Basically, much more could be said, but it doesn't take long to see that "the Bible alone" just doesn't work in practice.  Now, being raised to believe that the Bible alone is all we needed, I know how horrible it sounds to hear someone say that we can't go by the Bible alone.  But that's not what's intended.  No disrespect is meant to the position and role of Scripture.  However, it's important to put Scripture in the place and let it play the role that God intended.  To give it a lesser place is wrong.  But to elevate it beyond it's place is also wrong--and equally likely to result in mistaken doctrine.