Dialogue on Sole Scriptura between Jimmy Stephens and Joe the Catholic:

Jimmy:

There are a few arguments I might take up for Sola Scriptura. The aseity challenge is, I think, easy to understand. God’s omnipotence and aseity are mutually entailing. So it follows from God’s aseity and His intent to communicate the Gospel through a given media – say, the Bible – that He cannot fail to do so.

If God is a se and the Gospel of Scripture is His revelation to all men who read or hear it, then any failure to understand or acknowledge the Gospel is explained by faults of the audience, whether moral, psychological, noetic, biological, linguistic, etc., or some combination.

Joe:

I’m missing how God’s aseity entails sola scriptura without begging the question. God’s aseity either entails sola scriptura or it does not. That’s not contingent on my believing that God is a se.

Jimmy:

Sure, but I don’t see where you disagree with the entailment. If God is a se, then His intentions cannot fail. Since He intends to communicate the Gospel to those who read the Bible, that can’t fail to occur.

That’s a sufficient condition of Sola Scriptura.

Joe:

I don’t know why I would accept the premise that God intends to communicate the Gospel to everyone who reads the Bible.

Jimmy:

Acts 17:30-31

30. So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, 31. because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead.”

The whole passage makes the point, but here in particular the premise you reject is clear: God intends the hearing of the Gospel to inform its audience of the Gospel.

Joe:

What you said was God intends to communicate the Gospel to everyone who reads the Bible. The verses that you posted don’t say that.

I think in general it’s going to be a bad idea for you to appeal to the Bible and expect me to have the same understanding of its meaning that you do, given that we come from distinct and opposed traditions.

I suppose there’s probably also the question of how you know you have the entire Bible, of course. From my perspective you don’t — you’re missing several books. Regardless, presumably you don’t think that someone who reads, say, Esther 1:1-3 will have been communicated the Gospel. So it seems like if you want to say that “God intends to communicate the Gospel to everyone who reads the Bible” then you’d need to further qualify what you mean by reads, in order to communicate clearly. But that would bring interpretive issues into the picture — what is the Gospel, which passages communicate it, etc. Those questions can’t be resolved by presuming sola scriptura without engaging in question begging.

Jimmy:

I think there’s an easy set of premises to the Bible if you think there’s a gap between what Paul says and the words of Scripture.

Would you agree that Paul intends, and so God superintends Paul, to communicate the Gospel to his audience here?

Joe:

Where here? Verses 30-31? No.

Please read my two following comments above though. They are important.

Jimmy:

I do agree that it would be a rare occurrence for someone to put together the Gospel from Esther’s first three verses. I doubt by itself it’s possible to comprehend the Gospel.

But that would bring interpretive issues into the picture — what is the Gospel, which passages communicate it, etc.

That’s compatible with Sola Scriptura. People can fail to know the Gospel, for example, because they lack the right language. They might also just suffer a mental condition, some kind of mnemonic problem for example.
What would be incompatible with Sola Scriptura is an explanation for the audience’s failure to know the Gospel being some dearth of God’s revelation itself. If the Bible itself has some insufficiency, that’s a problem for Sola Scriptura.

I also agree this comes down to our theories of revelation and our hermeneutic and so forth, but that’s why I’m just casually poking at you and letting you do the same. A lot of this is just trivial investigation to see where our real disagreements lie.

Joe:

I suppose at this point it might be helpful for me to know the thing I asked you about a couple of times on prior days — how you cash out sola scriptura. That way when you say things like “that’s compatible with sola scriptura” I’ll understand all of the words you’re using.

Jimmy:

That’s a really good question. I probably should have started there.

Maybe the easiest way to cash out Sola Scriptura is to say that, where in general God’s acts possess special properties because they are God’s, so God’s word possesses special properties because it is God’s. There’s a general rule of association that God first exemplifies:

To have attitude x with respect to communication y of S is to have attitude x toward S.

To disbelieve or disobey Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God.

The gravitas here is that God is self-sufficient, immutable, Triune, etc. So the word of God is self-sufficient, unchanging, trinitarian, etc.

With respect to epistemology, there are a couple of interlocked properties, but perhaps the most salient is that the Scripture is sufficient to warrant belief such that no further conditions are required to believe what God says in Scripture beyond the universal conditions of any language transaction.

This follows from the fact that God is inherently worthy of trust and perfectly clear in His self-disclosure.

By way of contrast, counterexemplary doctrines like prima Scriptura tend to rest on the premise that God’s speech is not self-authenticating, that is, epistemically self-sufficient. The Bible is not a sufficient epistemic condition of what God says in it, even granted the relevant conditions of a language transaction.

Further conditions might include natural theology, a sacerdotal paradosis, private illumination, etc. In any such example, God’s act of speech in Scripture is insufficient. As such, it follows that God is not sufficient in Himself or unwilling.

The former is bad theology, I think you’ll agree. The latter is just eisegetical at best, wishful thinking at worst.

Joe:

Thank you for the detailed write-up. It’s not what I was expecting in that it doesn’t state something along the lines of “the Bible is the only rule of faith for the Christian” or “the Bible contains all that is necessary to be believed for salvation.” Perhaps a succinct principle of that sort could be synthesized from it, but I am loath to attempt such because I don’t want to misrepresent you.

I think that there are points in what you wrote with which I agree, but I want to be careful and not assume that I understand you correctly, so what I propose is that I touch on those points first, giving my understanding of them, and then I’ll address the areas where I’m pretty sure I disagree with you. Finally, I’d like to try to summarize the issue and see if I can suggest a way forward, discussion-wise.

You write that God exemplifies a particular rule of association that you outline with respect to God’s communication. I’m inclined to agree with you as regards that rule, but I’d shorten what you presented to the statement that God never fails to achieve God’s goals. Therefore, if God’s goal indeed is to communicate a particular message to a particular person, or to a particular group of people, then God cannot fail to communicate that message. So, for instance, when the word of God comes to Jonah and instructs him to go to Nineveh and preach against it, it’s not possible that God is misunderstood by Jonah or somehow otherwise fails to communicate his message to Jonah, since his goal is to communicate a particular message to Jonah. My question to you here is: am I correct in thinking that “God cannot fail to achieve God’s goals” is a valid generalized version of the rule of association you presented, or does it lack something?

Moving on, I agree with you that to disbelieve or disobey scripture (God’s written word) is to disbelieve or disobey God, since God’s word, written or otherwise, will always be consistent with his nature, and I further agree with you that God is self-sufficient, immutable, and triune.

Now when you address epistemology, you write that scripture (which I take to be God’s written word) is sufficient to warrant belief. I want to be careful here because while I agree generally, I think it’s important to explain what I think is and isn’t entailed here. Of course, that which God intends to communicate by his word (written or otherwise) to his intended recipients will always be communicated, per the principle that God cannot fail to achieve God’s goals. However, this doesn’t tell us what God’s goal is in each of his communications — that is, what he intends to communicate, or with whom he intends to communicate.

You go on to contrast the idea you’re presenting with ideas such as prima scriptura among others, noting that the latter seems to rest on the premise that God’s speech is not self-authenticating. It could be my fault for missing it, but I don’t see a prior argument that God’s speech is self-authenticating. Of course, God’s speech is self-authenticating if he intends it to be (e.g., Jonah), and I doubt we disagree there. But in order to say something to the effect that God’s speech is always self-authenticating, I think we’d have to say that God’s goal in speaking is always to be understood by all hearers. If that’s the case, then he can’t fail to be understood by all hearers. But in fact, he is not understood by all hearers, as can be evidenced, for instance, by my walking around Beijing reading an English Bible aloud to people who don’t know any English. I think that you admitted a similar view in our earlier convo when you wrote that people “can fail to know the Gospel, for example, because they lack the right language,” or because they “suffer a mental condition.”

In summary, what I want to suggest for your consideration is that when talking about God’s word, whether written or otherwise, there are at least two senses of sufficiency. There’s sufficiency to communicate God’s intended message to his intended recipients. Let’s call that sufficiency₁. I think that we agree that sufficiency₁ is intrinsic to God’s word. Then, there is sufficiency to communicate the entirety of God’s revelation to anyone and everyone — let’s call this sufficiency₂.

I think that the question in which sola scriptura is implicated is: where is the demarcation of God’s word such that sufficiency₂ is contained within it? To harp on the example I’ve been using, let’s say I tell you that God’s word to Jonah contains sufficiency₂. I suspect you’d disagree. It wouldn’t follow from your disagreement that God’s word to Jonah lacks sufficiency₁, would it? So from my side of the Tiber (and I suspect this holds for those on the other side of the Bosphorus as well), when someone says that denying sola scriptura means denying the sufficiency of God’s word, I want to know whether they’re talking about a denial of sufficiency₁, or sufficiency₂, or both. I’m not sure how it could be the former, since I don’t see a contradiction there. If it’s a denial of sufficiency₂ then to me that looks like question begging, but perhaps I’m missing something?

Jimmy:

God never fails to achieve God’s goals. Therefore, if God’s goal indeed is to communicate a particular message to a particular person, or to a particular group of people, then God cannot fail to communicate that message.

This is in different words the exact principle I’m using. Key therefore: that God’s communicative intent entails audience-knowledge whatever it was God intended to communicate.

[T]his doesn’t tell us what God’s goal is in each of his communications — that is, what he intends to communicate, or with whom he intends to communicate.

Exactly. My goal here is to show that a rejection of my Reformed position really has only two alternatives. On the one hand, we can reject the perfections of God that I believe historic mainline Reformed and RC theists will affirm (e.g., omnipotence, immutability, etc.). If we reduce God, the efficaciousness of His word is reduced, explaining why something beyond His written word might be necessary.

The alternative is to argue that God did not intend Scripture to function the way the Reformed tradition makes out. God did not intend the Scripture (broadly) to communicate the Gospel to all men who comprehend its essence.

there are at least two senses of sufficiency.

I would not divide sufficiency as you have.
Rather, I would reproduce my classification of those who do not understand the Gospel. In that class, there are only two kinds of men. Those who have not heard-read it, or those who have not had the natural means of language to comprehend what was heard/read.

The view of sufficiency I’m proposing doesn’t bypass the exegencies of human language. Rather, it entails that whenever someone does not know the Gospel, that lack of understanding is always and only ever explained by:
(1) not experiencing it at all
(2) not meeting the natural requisites of language.

Surely, people in Beijing who do not speak English do not have the linguistic means to comprehend your English speech. But that doesn’t counter a doctrine of Sola Scriptura as I’ve posited it. For on my view, if you were speaking in the right dialect of Chinese, your audience could not fail to acquire or remember knowledge of the Gospel.

I think, perhaps similar to what you said, that the real contention is whether the inspiration of Scripture means, implies, or presupposes that Scripture is meant to convey to all men who meet the natural requisites of language the Gospel of Christ.

It seems to me because (I presume) we agree about the holiness and perfection of God, you will say no and I will say yes and that’s the heart of the debate.

I apologize for bypassing somewhat your last question, but I don’t see Sufficiency^1/^2 as the stand-off between Luther, Calvin, etc., and Rome.

It seems to me the issue is whether the class of men who do not know the Gospel includes anyone who has read/heard and understood (in a language-comprehensive sense) the Bible.

I suspect you deny that because you do not think the Bible carries a divine telos of enlightening everyone who reads such that they meet the natural requirements of language.

Joe:

I’m glad that we agree that God never fails to accomplish his goals. I found it interesting that you wrote:

If we reduce God, the efficaciousness of His word is reduced, explaining why something beyond His written word might be necessary.

What I want to say is that if God’s perfections are reduced, then any form of his word, not just scripture, may not be sufficient to accomplish his goals. I suspect, again, that you’d agree. But taking it from the other direction, I’m not sure why we should conclude from that that if God communicates in some form other than written, then God’s perfections are reduced. I don’t see a contradiction there that necessitates such a conclusion, thus my earlier distinction between what I called sufficiency₁ and sufficiency₂, as well as my request to you for the argument that God’s speech is always self-authenticating.

In reply to your statement that you wouldn’t divide sufficiency as I did, I want to clarify that I’m not making a metaphysical claim with such a division (or, at least, I’m not intending to do so), but merely observing that people use the terms “sufficient” or “sufficiency” in at least the two differing ways I described, and so I wanted to flag those differing meanings to avoid potential equivocation.

Regarding your classification scheme wherein on the one hand we have those who have heard and understood the Gospel, and on the other those who haven’t (either haven’t heard, or have heard but haven’t understood), I have no particular disagreement in principle. However I don’t think that it follows from such a scheme that the Bible is always efficacious in communicating the Gospel to people who sometimes correctly understand, in other contexts and in other arrangements, the words contained in the Bible. If I am wrong and such a view ought be considered normatively Christian, then I would want to hear the argument(s).

No worries about somewhat bypassing my last question. When you write:

It seems to me the issue is whether the class of men who do not know the Gospel include anyone who has read/heard and understood (in a language-comprehensive sense) the Bible.

I think you mean to say something like the issue is whether there can exist at least one person in the set of those who do not know the Gospel who is also in the set of those who have read/heard and understood the Bible. If I’m right to interpret you in this way, and if what it means to “understand” the Bible is to rightly understand God’s word as written down (as opposed to “understanding” that the Bible says, for instance, that Jesus was a mushroom), then of course everyone who is in the second set (those who have rightly understood the Bible) is also tautologically in the first set, since I believe that God’s written word is sufficient to communicate the Gospel. (Another way of putting this point is that “understood” in the latter part of your statement is doing a lot of work.)

But then where we end up, it seems to me, is at a principle that says something like: “those who have correctly understood the Gospel (via reading/hearing) understand the Gospel.” That’s trivially true, but it doesn’t get us to “everyone who reads the Bible is necessarily enlightened by it” or “extra-biblical revelation doesn’t exist” or “(what we call) Holy Tradition cannot be a thing” all of which I think are things you want to say, and I think are typically thought to turn on sola scriptura, and in a way are the motives historically (from my POV) for such a principle as sola scriptura.

I have to confess I hadn’t thought about the word telos in relation to scripture beforehand. I think I’d want to say something like scripture is the written record of God’s revelation to his Church, and I think that’s pretty consistent with the history of Christian thought and theology prior to the Reformation.

I’m not sure where this leaves us. It’s probably obvious that if you try to prove sola scriptura to me from the Bible I’ll object to any interpretations that could support it as deriving from instances of question begging, and if I try to show you patristic sources that admit other sources of revelation (i.e. Tradition) besides scripture you’ll suspect they’re cherry-picked to support an agenda, or you could take the presup route and tell me that since God has unmistakably revealed the truth of what you’re telling me to you, any such writings are just plain wrong. But I don’t see a lot of fruitfulness in those sorts of conversational paths.

Of course, if there are instances of my misunderstanding or misconstruing you above then by all means we can talk about them. I would be interested in the points that I’ve attempted to press you on above and your responses to them. In any case, may it be the prayer of the both of us that the Lord guide us into all truth.