by James Akin
(With inserted comments by Moses Flores)
Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") teaches that every teaching in Christian theology (everything pertaining to "faith and practice") must be able to be derived from Scripture alone. This is expressed by the Reformation slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological," cf. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, Richard A. Muller, Baker, 1985).
Comments: Wow. This is one of the many caricatures that Roman Catholics have about Sola Scriptura. Needless to say, Akin’s paper is already off to a “false start” and even a deceptive one since his representation and understanding of his opposition is not accurately reflected in his statement of their doctrine.
Let me say, first of all, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a statement about the Bible. It is not a statement about what may be done with the Bible. It is a statement and attestation to its sufficiency, namely the sufficiency of Scripture for the knowledge of the Gospel and the standard for true Christian belief. Thus, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, accurately stated in two parts is: The Scriptures contain within themselves all that is necessary for knowledge of salvation (material sufficiency) and this knowledge of the Gospel may be clearly understood and perceived by the learned and unlearned alike (perspicuity as well as formal sufficiency) AND the Bible alone as God’s infallible, God-breathed Word is the sole infallible rule of faith for doctrine and morals.
As has been stated by my
paper before, Sola Scriptura is not 1)
a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge exhaustively 2) a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive
compendium of all knowledge pertaining to religion (this one is relevant to
Akin’s definition) 3) deny the Church to teach the truths found in the
Bible or to formulate Creeds or Confessions 4) a denial that
God’s Word was never in an oral form at one time or another 5) the rejection of all traditions of every form
and kind 6) a restriction or a denial of the Holy Spirit in the process
of guiding and illuminating the Church.
The
main claims of Sola Scriptura concern the ultimate
authority of Scripture over the Church and an extra body of revelation
(Sacred Tradition) as well as the
material sufficiency of the Scriptures in regards to the Gospel,
especially what is required to be saved.
Thus, any thing –whether Church or oral tradition, even “new revelation”
that states other requirements of belief for salvation that the Scriptures have
not proposed to be done for salvation IS NOT NECESSARY. When the jailer asked Paul, “what must I do to
be saved?”, Paul did not list the many things that
Akin
would have us believe that Sola Scriptura is concerned with proving all
Christian theology from the Scriptures.
While this is certainly true to a point ( of which I will elaborate on
shortly), the way Akin caricatures the doctrine is that unless I read the
Scriptures alone I cannot understand or know all Christian theology. Akin’s basis for
his understanding of Sola Scriptura seems to be from a misapplied and out of
context slogan of the Reformation: “What is not Biblical is not
theological.” What this slogan is
getting at is that if something is not contained within the Scriptures, then it
is not a matter of theology nor is it necessary to be believed. For instance, a specific liturgical format is
not explicitly defined in the Scriptures.
Thus, requiring the adherence to and belief in a specific liturgical
format would be considered wrong since it is not a “theological concern” in the
Bible. Thus, the quote, in its
historical context, and in the light of the truly defined doctrine of Sola
Scriptura is simply affirming that if it is not found in Scripture, it is not
required for faith or knowledge of the Gospel.
Akin has somehow misused that quote and inserted his idea (caricature)
that Sola Scriptura means the Bible contains “every teaching in Christian
theology.”
On
a personal note, I must say that I agree with Akin’s
statement that the Bible contains in it every teaching concerning Christian
theology. I believe the Bible alone is
the sole source from which we derive our true knowledge of the true God and the
sole place where he has preserved His revelation for us. However, that is NOT the doctrine of Sola
Scriptura. That is a different matter
pertaining to the nature of revelation and deals with things on a more
philosophical level (epistemological, in particular). I must emphasize over and over again due to
Roman Catholic misunderstandings and caricatures that the doctrine of Sola
Scriptura concerns the ultimate authority of Scripture for Christian doctrine
and the material sufficiency of the revelation of the Gospel.
_______________________________________________________________________
An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) any binding authority. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority.
A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is, therefore, the idea of an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture means, irrespective of what anyone-or everyone-else says. If anyone or even everyone else together could tell the believer what to believe, Scripture would not be his sole authority; something else would have binding authority. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology is simply to suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian.
Comments: Quite the contrary is actually true. If the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, and the Scriptures contain within themselves its own standard for interpretation (formal sufficiency, even perspicuity), then what follows is NOT the caricature that Akin give here. Instead, what follows is exactly what Scripture prescribes in II Timothy 2:15: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Sola Scriptura acknowledges the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture and their ultimate authority. Those suppositions are not a basis for the “final prerogative” of the individual to decide what Scripture means. Akin’s logical jump here is really invalid.
What the Reformers did teach (and their followers after them), especially Calvin, about Scriptural interpretation (particularly those things that are not easily understood) is that it should be done with regard for the historical setting in which it was written and attention to the grammatical constructions of the texts (Historico-Grammatical Method). While some Reformers, including Luther, still held to the allegorical interpretational method, it was the Historico-grammatical Method that best suited as the method of understanding Scripture as it was intended to be by the original authors and as the original audiences would have understood it. This method recognized that each book of Scripture was written with intention. To interpret a part of Scripture irrespective of the individual book’s intention would be to, thus, DEVIATE from the writer’s original intent. Likewise, because of the verbal and plenary God-breathedness of the Scriptures, the Reformers believed that every word – the very grammatical construction (every “jot and tittle” as Jesus said) was purposefully used. Thus, interpretations which pay no attention to the grammar may easily deviate from how and what the original writers intended to communicate (for example, not following pronouns, or not paying attention to verb tenses, even in the Greek, a conjugated verb may not be translated correctly to another language, or a noun may not properly be declined). An erroneous understanding or interpretation of Scripture is bound to follow one who does not take such things into consideration.
If anything, Sola Scriptura entails sober responsibility in handling that which is the ultimate authority of faith and even the very breath of God Himself! None of the Reformers ever taught the idea that it is the right of every person to be their own “private theologian” in the sense that they may interpret Scripture as they see fit. These are caricatures and ad hominems against the Reformers and their teachings. In fact, they are total misrepresentations!
If the Reformers really
believed as Akin is proposing in his “corollary” – that all may interpret the
Scriptures as they see fit – then why did/do the Reformers/their followers
argue for objective interpretations of Scripture based off of the original
intent of the authors as well as the grammatical constructions and argue
against the subjective interpretations based off the dispositions and
presuppositions of the readers? If the
Reformers really believed that Sola Scriptura enabled the individual Christian
to have the right to interpret the Scriptures in any way they pleased, then
wouldn’t they be inconsistent in condemning the Arminian
theology of the Remonstrants in the early 17th
century? If they believed that
subjective interpretation was true, then they would have no basis for even
arguing against
______________________________________________________________________
Of course, we all know that the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way, even the average person admitted by Fundamentalists to be a genuine, "born again" believer. There are simply too many godly grannies who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians.
Not only is the average Christian totally disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, but if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to-an easy task considering the number of different theological issues-then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors have long realized (in fact, Luther and Calvin realized it) that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up. …….
Comments: It is difficult to respond directly to Akin’s assertions here being that he is operating already from a false understanding of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but a few comments will be in order.
First, it is no surprise
that people often misunderstand the Scriptures.
BUT, this is not due to anything lacking in the material or formal
sufficiency of the Scriptures nor their clarity in
which they speak in regarding the Gospel.
The problem of “Scripture twisting” lies in the hearts of the ones reading
it. Peter himself says that it is
“untaught” and “unstable” men who “twist the Scriptures to their own
destruction” (II Peter
To my knowledge, the Roman
Catholic Church has practiced some form of discipline, including
excommunication. If my knowledge serves
me correctly, it is still something that is endorsed by her official doctrinal
statements. Their basis for doing this
is her set standards for doctrine and morality as defined by the many
“anathemas”
In any case, Church discipline of that nature is administered only when essential doctrines of the Gospel (e.g. the Resurrection, the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Bodily return of Christ, the Infallibility of the Scriptures,etc…all those things affirmed by “the Fundamentalist” of the early 20th century) are changed or distorted or when a person’s morality is not in conformity to that of the Gospel which he/she professes (e.g. practicing homosexuals, living in open adultery). I myself have been witness to a form of Church discipline when a member of a congregation openly professed that she did not believe in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity but rather believed in Sabellianism/Modalism.. The form of discipline administered was to withhold the Lord’s Supper from her until she had repented from this error and had come to the correct understanding of Christ and God. Akin’s unwillingness to allow for Church discipline is really unfounded especially when Luther himself stated what he believed to be the three marks of a true Church as the true preaching of God’s word, the due administration of the sacraments and the due administration of Church discipline.
One other thing that Akin mentions is that Luther and Calvin “prohibited the right of ‘private judgment’ in order to prevent strife. This is totally false.
First, as has been stated before, neither Luther nor Calvin believed that anybody has the right to interpret Scripture against the sense in which it was originally given. This is sheer intellectual dishonesty to portray the opposite as the teaching of the Reformers.
Second, what Luther and Calvin did teach concerning the individual Christian and the Scriptures is that each Christian had the right to see their faith from the Scriptures and come to the proper interpretations of the Scriptures for themselves without having to be told what they mean by anybody else. The Scriptures were to be placed in the hands of each Christian that their faith would be based on the Supreme authority of the Scriptures and not what one (e.g. a priest) says that the Scriptures say, that their faith might be “primary” (From the Word of God directly) if you will and not “secondary” (from what someone else says that the word of God means).
What is interesting, and
not acknowledged by Akin is
Akin’s charges against the Reformers here is
totally unfounded and unproven.
______________________________________________________________________
….It is the failure of the prohibition of the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia.
Comments: I believe last time we talked about this “20,000 denomination” argument I mentioned that the research statistic was skewed and not accurately represented. I would like to now take the time to expand on that a bit.
First, the “World Christian
Encyclopedia” was contributed to by a certain man by the name of David Barrett
(World Christian Encyclopedia: A
Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000
(ed. David A. Barrett;
Thus, according to Barrett’s research there are actually 8,196 denominations and not 20,000 as Catholics wish to assert. But even this figure is misleading so as to say that each denomination is different in its essential doctrines; for it is clear that Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Presbyterian church that emphasizes hymns, and another Presbyterian church that emphasizes Psalms only). Eric Svendsen, a Protestant apologist elaborates what Barrett means by “distinctive denomination” a bit more:
“In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a
“jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations
comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them
(in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent
Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in
belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its
autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or
semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist
denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even
though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them. The same
principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in
1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis
of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.
Surprisingly, Barrett also says that the Roman Catholic denomination number of 223 can be further broken down to 2,942 separate “denominations.” Eric Svendsen speaks more of the denominational break down:
In addition to the seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above), Barrett breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have significant differences (what he calls “major ecclesiastical traditions,” and what we might normally call a true denomination) (Barrett, 14). Referring again to our seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above, but this time in reverse order): For (1) Catholic (Non-Roman), there are four traditions, including Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old Catholic, and Conservative Catholic; for (2) Marginal Protestants, there are six traditions; for (3) Anglican, there are six traditions; for (4) Non-White Indigenous, which encompasses third-world peoples (among whom can be found traces of Christianity mixed with the major tenets of their indigenous pagan religions), there are twenty traditions, including a branch of Reformed Catholic and a branch of Conservative Catholic; for (5) Orthodox, there are nineteen traditions; for (6) Protestant, there are twenty-one traditions; and for (7) Roman Catholic, there are sixteen traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic. It is important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic traditions (i.e., true denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant traditions (i.e., true denominations). In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that puts the total number of actual denominations in the world at ninety-two—obviously nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists constantly assert—and that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman Catholicism (Barrett, 15)! Barrett goes on to note that this figure includes all denominations with a membership of over 100,000. There are an additional sixty-four denominations worldwide, distributed among the seven major ecclesiastical blocs.
Moreover, Barrett later compares
Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism,
which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number
of denominations is concerned), and which
is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being
liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not
hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality).
Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of
authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have
demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches
(i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome. An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is
someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance
upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on
evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals
Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group.
However, when he addresses Roman
Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups:
(1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic
Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin
American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional
Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also
regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist
Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults).
And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions
between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic
scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most
Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by
apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist
Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).
Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.
In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded
(This work is from “Upon this Slippery Rock” by Dr. Eric Svendsen, Calvary Press,
Dr. Svendsen makes it very clear in his presentation that a
thorough examination of the source of the “20,000 denomination” argument is
quickly dispelled by the Protestant and
______________________________________________________________________
The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants? Must baptism be by immersion only? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government?) is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Comments: Akin’s comments
here in the light of Barrett’s true distinction of Sola Scriptura churches
reveals that Akin is fabricating his information here. Truly disappointing.
____________________________________________________________________
However, there is a whole set of practical presuppositions that the doctrine of sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine, but a fatal blow to it. Sola scriptura simply cannot be God's plan for Christian theology.
In fact, it could never even have been thought to be God's plan before a certain stage in European history because, as we will see, it could have only arisen after a certain technological development which was unknown in the ancient world. Before that one development, nobody would have ever thought that sola scriptura could be the principle God intended people to use, meaning it was no accident that the Reformation occurred when it did.
Comments: The paper, from this point on begins to
attack the straw man of Sola Scriptura that Akin has conjured up. As was stated in the beginning of this paper
in correction of Akin’s assertion of what he believes
Sola Scriptura is, Sola Scriptura is concerned with the ultimate authority of
Scripture and the material sufficiency of Scripture to teach all things
necessary for salvation (i.e. it clearly sets forth the Gospel and all that one
must believe to be saved).
______________________________________________________________________
If God had intended the individual Christian to use sola scriptura as his operating principle then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. We can therefore judge whether sola scriptura could have been God's plan for the individual Christian by asking whether the average Christian in world history could have implemented it.
Comment: Akin does do something rather devious here though. His first functioning definition of Sola Scriptura was that everything in Christian theology must be able to be derived from the Scriptures alone. Now, notice the equivocation that has taken place. Sola Scriptura is now defined according to the availability of the Scriptures! This is not a presupposition for Sola Scriptura to work. If anything, the presuppositions of the true doctrine of Sola Scriptura are that Revelation from God really is revelation; that is, what is revealed is clear and able to be understood, especially to those whom God intended to communicate to. The Corollary of this, is that what God reveals does not remain “hidden” nor does it need something outside of that revelation to reveal it clearly. Other presuppositions include that God is the Sovereign God and has preserved His revelation for all generations in the Scriptures which are inerrant and infallible in all their teachings. Notice, again, that all these presuppositions, like the statement of Sola Scriptura are statements ABOUT SCRIPTURE. They speak to the nature of Scripture. They do not have reference to the creature, nor their availability. The Scriptures to do not require the presence of someone to read them in order to be authorative or contain all that is necessary for salvation.
The invention of the printing press, therefore, was not basis for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as Akin so deviously wishes to assert. The Reformers were able to immerse themselves in the writings of the early fathers who would make statements such as “[The Canonical Scriptures] are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them” (Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter) after listing the Canon of Scripture (of which he did not affirm the Apocrypha as canonical). The Reformers invented no new doctrines, but rather restored to the Church that principle which had been corrupted, destroyed and nearly lost in the Church. They restored the true apostolic faith as passed on to the Church in the Scriptures alone.
Akin’s
next sections of critique all stem from his misunderstanding of the doctrine of
Sola Scriptura. Thus, I will deal with
them all as a whole after the following sections and make some comments in
passing.
_______________________________________________________________________
Not only that, but since God promised that the Church would never pass out of existence (Matt. 16:18, 28:20), the normal Christian of each age must be able to implement sola scriptura, including the crucial patristic era, when the early Church Fathers hammered out the most basic tenets of Christian orthodoxy.
It is in this practical area that the doctrine comes crashing down, for it has a number of presuppositions which are in no way true of the average Christian of world history, and certainly not of the average Christian of early Church history.
First, if each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean (even taking into consideration the interpretations of others) then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study (a non-thorough study being a dangerous thing, as any Protestant apologist warning one against the cults and their Bible study tactics will tell you). Thus the universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular.
This, however, was completely impossible before invention of the printing press, for without that there could not be enough copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to use. Sola scriptura therefore presupposes the inventing of the printing press, something that did not happen for the first 1,400 years of Church history (which will be the almost three-quarters of it if the world ends any time soon).
It is often noted by even Protestant historians that the Reformation could not have taken off like it did in the early 1500s if the printing press had not been invented in the mid-1400s, and this is more true than they know, because the printing press not only allowed the early Protestant to mass produce works containing their teachings about what the Bible meant, it allowed the mass production of Bible itself (as Catholics were already doing; one does realize, of course, that the Gutenberg Bible and the other versions of the Bible being produced before Protestantism were all Catholic Bibles).
Without the ability to mass produce copies of the Scriptures for the individual Christians to interpret, the doctrine of sola scriptura could not function, since one would only have very limited access to the texts otherwise-via the Scripture readings at Mass and the costly, hand-made copies of the Bible kept on public display at the church. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the printing press.
This is a key reason why the Reformation happened when it did-several decades after the invention of the printing press. It took time for the idea of the printing press to make its mark on the European mind and get people excited about the idea of easily available books. It was in this heady atmosphere, the first time in human history when dozens of ancient works were being mass produced and sold, that people suddenly got excited with the thought, "Hey! We could give copies of the Bible to everyone! Everyone could read the Scriptures for themselves!"-a thought which led very quickly into sola scriptura in the minds of those who wished to oppose historic Christian theology, as it would provide a justification for their own desire to depart from orthodoxy ("Hey, I read the Scriptures, and this is what they said to me!").
Of course, the invention of the printing press does not itself enable us to
give Bibles to every Christian in the world (as all the calls for Bibles to be
sent to
Second, besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes the universal distribution of books and of the Bible in particular. For it is no good if enough copies of the Bible exist but they can't be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There thus must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian.
This is the case today in the developed world; however, even today we cannot get enough Bibles into many lands due to economic and political restraints, as the fund raising appeals of Bible societies and their stories of Bible smuggling inform us. However, in the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been totally impossible even in the what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the "developed world" was undeveloped.
The political systems, economies, logistical networks, and travel infrastructure that make the mass distribution of Bibles possible today simply did not exist for three-quarters of Church history. There was no way to get the books to the peasants, and no way the peasants could have afforded them in the first place. There just wasn't enough cash in circulation (just try giving a printer 5,000 chickens for the 1,000 Bibles he has just printed-much less keeping the chickens alive and transported from the time the peasants pay them to the time the printer gets them).
Third, if the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean then he obviously must be able to read. Having someone read them to him simply is not sufficient, not only because the person would only be able to do it occasionally (what with a bunch of illiterates to read to), but also because the person needs to be able to go over the passage multiple times, looking at its exact wording and grammatical structure, to be able to quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic to formulate the different aspects of a doctrine as he is thinking about it, and finally to be able to record his insights so he doesn't forget them and he can keep the evidence straight in his mind. He therefore must be literate and able to read for himself. Thus sola scriptura presupposes universal literacy.
Fourth, if the average Christian is going to make a study of what Scripture says and decide what it teaches, he must possess adequate scholarly support material, for he must either be able to read the texts in the original languages or have material capable of telling him when there is a translation question that could affect doctrine (for example, does the Greek word for "baptize" mean "immerse" or does it have a broader meaning? does the biblical term for "justify" mean to make righteous in only a legal sense or sometimes in a broader one?).
He must also have these scholarly support works (commentaries and such) to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations to evaluate, for no one person is going to be able to think of every interpretive option on every passage of Scripture that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine. No Protestant pastor (at least no pastors who are not in extreme anti-intellectual circles) would dream of formulating his views without such support materials, and he thus cannot expect the average Christian to do so either. Indeed! The average Christian is going to need such support materials even more than a trained pastor. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes the possession-not just the existence-of adequate support materials.
Fifth, if the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, then he obviously must have adequate time in which to do this study. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he obviously doesn't have time to do this, especially not in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat and sleep and recreate. Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time, for nobody becomes adept in the Bible just by reading the Bible on Sundays-as Protestants stress to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.
Sixth, even if a Christian had adequate time to study the Bible sufficiently, it will do him no good if he doesn't have a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly. This is something we often forget today because our diets are so rich, but for most of Christian history the average person had barely enough food to survive, and it was almost all bread. "Everything else," as the British historian James Burke put it, "was just something you ate with bread"-as a condiment or side-dish. This means that the average Christian of world history was malnourished, and as any public school dietitian can tell you, malnutrition causes an inability to study and learn properly. That is one of the big motivating forces behind the school lunch program. If kids don't eat right, they don't study right, and they don't learn right, because they don't think clearly. The same is true of Bible students. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes universal nutrition.
Seventh, if the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of skill in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not. That is quite a bit of critical thinking skill, and anyone who has ever tried to teach basic, introductory logic to college students or anyone who had tried to read and grade the persuasive essays they write for philosophy tests can tell you (I'm speaking from personal experience here), that level of critical thinking does not exist in the average, literate, well-nourished, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, malnourished, Medieval peasant. This is especially true when it comes to the abstract concepts and truth claims involved in philosophy and theology. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes a high level of universal education in critical thinking skills (a level which does not even exist today).
Therefore sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through the main course of Church history, and is not even true today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history!
All of this is besides the limitations we mentioned earlier-the fact that the average Christian, even the average devout Christian has no inclination whatsoever to conduct the kind of Bible study needed to become his own theologian and the fact that he is encouraged by many pressures from his own pastor and congregation (including the threat of being cast out) to fall in line and not challenge--especially publicly challenge--the party platform.
Comments: First I shall dispel the whole and then make passing comments on some of these assertions that I feel need to be dealt with.
Again, sounding very redundant here, all of these assertions are based off of Akin’s false understanding and stated doctrine of Sola Scriptura as well as the equivocation of it to the availability of Scripture. The main concerns of Sola Scriptura are the ultimate authority of Scripture and the sufficiency of the revelation in Scripture concerning the Gospel. There really is no excuse for Akin to have a misunderstanding of the doctrine since the invention of the printing press. That is, there are many excellent and able Protestant works – both classical and contemporary alike – on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. For instance, “Sola Scriptura: The Protestant position on the Bible” edited by Don Kistler (from Soli Deo Gloria Publishers) ; James R. White has two books that deal with the subject: “the Roman Catholic Controversy” and “Scripture Alone” (from Bethany House Publishers) and the most recent and phenomenal work on Sola Scriptura by William Webster and David T. King “Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of our Faith” (from Christian Resources Publishers). Akin’s ignorance on this matter is willful and due to negligence since he has obviously not gained any understanding of the doctrine from Protestants themselves.
Second, most of the things that Akin concerns himself with here have absolutely nothing to do with the truly defined doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Although some of what he says is true about reading the scriptures (eg. one must be able to read), Sola Scriptura is not concerned about the reader of Scripture. It is concerned about the nature of Scripture. As was said at the beginning comments, Sola Scriptura is a statement about Scripture.
I would like to make some
comments about Akin’s fourth concern though (the need
for scholarship). First, as I said
early, this is based on a misunderstanding and caricature that all that a
Christian must believe must be proved from the Bible alone. Sola Scriptura is concerned about the
sufficiency of the content of the Gospel that must be believed for salvation
and its clarity for any and all who are willing and
able to read its pages. The doctrine of
Sola Scriptura truly defined stated that the “learned and unlearned” alike may
understand the Gospel and be saved. That
is what Sola Scriptura concerns itself with.
Not understanding all the deep complexities of the Trinity, or
eschatology or anthropology. Those
subjects certainly do require deeper study, indeed “diligence” as the
Scriptures themselves assert (II Tim.
________________________________________________________________________
It is thus hard to think of sola scriptura as anything but the theory spawned by a bunch of idealistic, Renaissance-era dilettantes--people who had an interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had adequate nutrition, who had plenty of leisure time for study, who had plenty of scholarly support materials, who had good reading skills, who had access to Bible-sellers, and most importantly, who had printed Bibles!
Comments: Here, I think, Akin reveals his true reasons for rejecting the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and it is an Ad Hominem argument the Reformers. Akin’s hatred of the Reformers is what is driving him against Sola Scriptura in this paper, and perhaps it is even causing him to misrepresent the teachings of the Reformers. I will not speculate definitively into this matter, but, nevertheless, I believe that Akin’s true motives are revealed in this closing paragraph. A true disappointment to see such a paper written with no solid facts, nor true interaction with the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and then to delve into Ad Hominem attacks is just totally uncalled for.
Unfortuneately,
Akin’s work here is the exact kind of interaction and
understanding of Protestantism that I seek to avoid. For whatever reasons, Catholics tend to
caricature the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide (as a side,
I have read Akin’s critique of the Protestant
doctrine of Sola Fide and find it equally, if not more, lacking in
understanding of what the Reformers taught).
Even Akin’s hatred of the Reformers is not
uncommon in discussions and papers and tends to be the norm in Roman Catholic
and Protestant dialogue. The Ethics
reflected in this paper (distorting and misrepresenting views, personal
attacks, speculation) and mannerism reflected by Akin, I hope, will not
continue for they truly do not reflect the Christian character manifested by
love, and the fruits of the Spirit. Nor
do they reflect Christ, who understood all that His enemies argued against them
and never tried to use straw men arguments against them. Even in debating His enemies, Christ showed
love for them. I hope that I have done
the same in dealing honestly with Roman Catholic sources and that I have not
been intellectually dishonest or deceptive for that would not be glorifying to
my Christ nor conducive and fruitful to any of these discussions.
________________________________________________________________________
The average Christian today, even the average Christian in the developed world, does not fit that profile, and the average Christian in world history certainly did not, much less the average Christian in the early centuries. What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.
But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God's plan.