Theological Method: Is sola scriptura possible?

[swaimj]

Daniel Dunivan said (way back on page 2 of this thread):

The question that I am raising is whether sola scriptura is still possible as we recognize that we are always using our reason to draw out implications of the texts. We are using our reason as the authority by which we interpret scripture whether we take it as literal or figurative.

Just because we are using reason does not mean that we are exalting reason above the text and thereby making it a greater authority. We use reason because reason is a tool God has given us so that we can understand his revelation. We use reason because it is superior in bringing us to true conclusions than is non-reason or madness. Furthermore, God has given us His Spirit, apart from whom we could not understand revelation, but with whom we are able to come to the truth.

I agree that often, in practice, our reason trumps revelation. Often we may come to conclusions about the scripture that are not accurate because we prefer our logic to what God has said. None of us can claim to understand the scriptures fully. Still, the idea the God's revelation is perfect (though not comprehensive; i.e. not a revelation of all that God knows) should ideally guide our thinking. Because we are not perfect, it does not always guide our thinking.

In this sense, sola scriptura is not possible. As an imperfect, fallen, sinful human, I cannot always submit my thinking to God's revelation. In practice, my logic, my point of view, my pre-conceived notions often prevent me from understanding what God says.

However, I believe that God's Word teaches that God's revelation is the source and authority of truth for the Christian. Therefore I endeavor to submit my thinking to it, though the ability to do this is given by the Holy Spirit and is not something that I can attain through my own desire, no matter how noble that desire may be.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Just a little additional thought - surely we all recognize that earnest, sincere christians, doing their best to follow scripture, come up with incompatible interpretations. This is evidence that earnest sincerety is sometimes not enough.

 

[jerryMschneider]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes... which goes to the core of the matter. Our reasoning is not infallible nor God inspired. The Bible obviously uses figurative language at times but we should not work from the premise that anything that offends our reason is by necessity non-literal.

That's all fine and dandy but we don't really have a choice. If our reason says something is so, we believe it to be so regardless of what scripture says, and that happens to every one of us as we read the scriptures. We then interpret from there. This is the human condition.

A sample verse to test yourself:

Leviticus 11:23 "But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you".

Reading this verse, I personally refuse to alter my long held belief that all the flying creeping things have six legs, not four. In fact, nothing with wings has four legs; they all have either two or six. Do you join me, or do you follow your own advice and decide that insects, after all, only have four legs? </font>[/QUOTE]Have you considered that the meaning of this verse is more correctly understood as this; That group of flying creatures which have four feet shall be an abomination unto you".

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

Two things:

1) Swaimj, you and I are very close. However, I think we would disagree about how much that sinful fallen nature is also expressed through the biblical authors (another words on the notion of inerrency), and that will not allow us to go much further with this line of debate (another thread another time).

2) Biblical interpretation and theological reflection are two different things. What comes to the surface during our biblical exegesis and our theological conclusions should be close if we see the bible as authority. However, when we begin to form our theological conclusions from a non-systematic, yet very theological, bible, we use tradition, experience, and reason as organizing agents. This is the discussion ground for this thread.