Replies

Now, if sola scriptura is understood as simply teaching that the Bible “alone is of supreme and final authority in faith and life,” then these problems may be avoided, for this would at least admit to the possibility (if not the necessity) of additional authorities. Under this view, sola scriptura can operate alongside extra-biblical authorities without necessarily placing any of them at a level that the Bible alone occupies.

What our Roman Catholic friends are likely to miss from this article is that he is talking about aids to Biblical interpretation that make interpretation sound; not a rejection of the classical definition of sola scriptura.

But the one major part this "philosopher in training" ignores in his multi-level interpretive scheme is the Bible itself. By piling on layers of understanding required to complete the exegesis of a passage ... he has in fact rejected the doctrine of the clarity of scripture. The Bible was written in common language for average people to read and the text presents the message of salvation in an understandable way.

His a priori assumption that the reader comes to the text of the Bible with an insurmountable problem on multiple levels is NONSENSE.

But then again, he needs to put something down on paper if he is going to get a PhD.

The Bible was written in common language for average people to read and the text presents the message of salvation in an understandable way.

The Bible disagrees with you...

[KJV] Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

The Bible was written in common language for average people to read and the text presents the message of salvation in an understandable way.

yes and no -- it is common language (it was originally in Koine Greek or Aramaic) but, forget about the translations, even in the original, every statement can be interpreted differently by different folks. Let me give you a few examples:

The Bible says entire households were baptised. Baptists say that this was only adults, Presbyterians etc. say no, this included children in the house. The Bible itself is silent and one can interpret this directly the way one wishes
Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 -- [1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters --> now some say that "look, in verse 1 God created everything and then suddenly it was empty. So there might have been an entire universe, billions of years at that time." others will disagree

but let's be very clear -- ambiguity is our, the interpeters fault, the Bible itself is inerrant --> a reading of the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles still convince our Oneness Pentecostal friends of their beliefs which are at loggerheads with ours -- different interpretations of the same inerrant Bible. Even core, fundamental beliefs like the True Presence in the Eucharist -- one may interpret this as True or just a symbol if one takes it as it is. Some may say that one must speak in tongues to show being born again, others may not agree and say that miracles ended at the time of the Apostles. This is our own individual interpretations which are open to errors and cast no aspersions on the inerrancy of the Bible