This is part of a collection of rebuttals, responses, and replies. See the index.
Analyzing the axioms of sola scriptura and sola ecclesia.
This post in a response to Jack at Sigma Frame. For context, see the comments at “Are Common-Law Marriages the most Biblical?”
Axioms
The quotations
Sola scriptura is the axiom that the Scripture is the Word of God. An axiom is a statement that is self-evidently true, a thing that is defined not derived. The standard for sola scriptura is defined by God in 1 Kings 13, where the man of God was killed for not following the self-evident authority of the Word of God and failing to reject the external authority.
Commentator Eye of Sauron stated the Orthodox and Roman Catholic axiom of sola ecclesia:
I replied…
The response
It is not true that scripture and church are parallel authorities
In the Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) frame, the church has implicit authority over what scripture is or isn’t the Word of God. The church is axiomatically authoritative. Logically, the church cannot cite scripture for its authority, for the authority of scripture is derived from the church and tradition. To do so would be circular reasoning. It can, however, assume this as a matter of axiom.
Read back to what EoS said: if scripture says something precise and rational, it has no bearing on faith unless it is conforms to the church and tradition. Thus, what constitutes the Word of God is derived from the church and traditions. Something derived cannot be an axiomatically true, which is why EoS rejects sola scriptura. The authority of the church is derived from itself—from its own traditions and scriptures which it has defined by its self. It is self-evident, an axiom.
It really doesn’t matter that scripture, tradition, and church are parallel and intertwined. Together they form a self-evident truth, an axiom, that would immediately fail without the church. Indeed, it is trivial to find arguments from scripture that refute Orthodoxy (e.g. sacraments), but those arguments are only invalid because of the axiom of sola ecclesia.
Of scripture, tradition, and church, if you take one out (e.g. the church), what is left isn’t valid in Orthodoxy. As EoS says, scripture-only arguments have no bearing on the faith. None whatsoever. Valid scriptural arguments can only be derived from the church and tradition. This is plain from his own words.
What makes a particular scripture the Word of God? Is it because it is the self-evident Word of God (the axiom of sola scriptura) or is it because the church says it is the Word of God (the axiom of sola ecclesia). These are mutually exclusive, but also epistemologically equivalent. Each of us has to make an assumption about what is and is not scripture and how that is determined. For EoS…
If, as Jack claimed, neither scripture nor church trumped each other, then how could you resolve any conflict between the two? EoS said the solution is that nothing in scripture is valid without the church. In fact, we have seen EoS clearly and unambiguously choose the church every single time it conflicted with something found in scripture, without exception. It is not true that scripture and church are parallel authorities.
Word Salads
Clarifying Statements
Jack said:
It doesn’t matter what I believe. I was citing scripture, which speaks on its own authority using an argument that stands on its own. If there was a problem with scripture or my argument, it can be debunked without any reference to my beliefs. But nobody has debunked my arguments, rather EoS cited his own axiom in order to disregard my argument without consideration.
The only context of my arguments are scripture itself. I’m not going to clarify that scripture is my belief or the belief of a church. It is not. Scripture is self-evident and speaks for itself. The ‘doctrine’ I presented were the words of Genesis, the words of Jesus, and the words of Paul. They were not my words, nor the words of my church, nor the words of any other denomination. Why should I start every statement by saying “Scripture says…” which is implied by the references themselves?
In any case, this was in response to two comments by Eye of Sauron in direct reply to me, in which he falsely attributed my views:
Comment #1
One more comment for now RAM MAN.
So to resolve this problem, I will write my comments on my blog and link to them, keeping my replies there short and unobtrustive. I will not link back to the original article, as this would create an unnecessary pingback. Hopefully this arrangement suffices.”
I still don’t understand how you shut down the discussion when ALL you did was keep the discussion going with Scriptural insight that was not there before.
never used anyone’s talking points. The idea that I’m some sort of automaton for reading scripture on my own is a complete contradiction of the facts. Believing whatever your church tells you might make you a “canned talking point automaton”, but this is definitely not that.
That “canned talking point automaton” basically means they simply don’t know how to refute your argument or the Scripture it is based on.
If I may be so bold I’ll add my own small part to the discussion with at least now you and others know why so many (at least a dozen) commenters (including myself) and even its co-authors (NovaSeeker) have left Sigma Frame since Summer 2021-when things really started changing there, Yes?
Sigma Frame has an implied mission to be ecumenical: to help men with their relationships first and foremost, regardless of their faith. Whenever I point out that scripture needs to be followed first and not the traditions of men, this derails the discussion.
In other words, if the underlying assumptions in their arguments are invalid, then the arguments themselves are invalid and I don’t bother continuing to discuss those topics. Everything should be derailed and discussion should instead focus on correcting the false assumptions.
The problem is that Sigma Frame is being utilitarian, not ecumenical. One cannot be ecumenical unless one is part of the church, and to do that you have to be under the authority of Christ. and do what he says. An inter-faith approach is, by definition, a lie, because it says that there is a legitimate path of unity outside the unity of Christ. For Christ came to divide.
Pingback: Hate the sin, not the sinner
Pingback: Apostolic Apostasy | Σ Frame
Pingback: Soteriology
Pingback: Meta Cognitions | Σ Frame
Pingback: Synopsis of Sacramental Marriage | Σ Frame
Pingback: Why Is Disproving Arguments So Hard?
Pingback: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Pingback: On Suffering