0:00 When we consider which doctrines about Christianity are the most important, one of the highest bidders is our view of Scripture and its role in the Christian worldview. The Holy Scriptures are one of the most foundational aspects of Christianity, so they must be considered with care so that Christians may have a solid foundation to stand upon when considering matters of faith, morals, and the general Christian life. However, this can lead to questions regarding the nature of the Scriptures themselves. For example, should the scriptures be treated as being inerrant? Should they be seen as infallible? What role do they play in historical or even scientific cases nowadays? What is their place in the authority in the Christian paradigm? All of these questions are both fascinating and very important to the Christian worldview. However, in this particular video, we are most interested in that final question listed. What
0:50 is the position of authority that the scriptures hold i do not plan to argue for any one particular view here that the scriptures hold? I do not plan to argue. but rather i want to argue against one the position we will attempt to examine and disprove is that of solo scriptura but what exactly is solo scriptura to answer that let's quickly expand upon the most popular positions regarding scripture and its authority there are three main positions regarding scripture and church authority they are as follows the first is solo scriptura They are as follows. The first is sola scriptura. This is the position of Protestant and some other churches. It states that the Bible is the only infallible authority in the church, but other authorities do exist. They are just not infallible. This position is also sometimes called
1:38 prima scriptura, although some will argue that these two have their differences. However, in my opinion, if they do have their differences, they are very, very minor to the point where they're essentially indistinguishable from one another. The second position here is holy tradition, and this would be the position of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. In this position, both scripture and church tradition are interpreted by the church, and they are authoritative and binding. The people who hold to this, like the Catholic and Orthodox, would most likely call these infallible, but they do not have the same language, typically, of the canon and such as Protestants in all circumstances, as they do view it to be modern in some cases. language, typically, of the canon. So I want to be careful with how I word this to not accidentally mischaracterize their position. The final
2:29 position is that of solo scriptura, and that is the position in question today. In this system, scripture is both the only infallible authority in the church and also the only authority, period. There is no other authority in the church. Basically, solo scriptura is a position that you'll find being held by some generic run -of -the -mill non -denominational churches. This is due, in the most part, to their lack of theological knowledge of these topics. Oftentimes, these groups will claim to hold to sola scriptura, but upon closer inspection, like ask them what that actually means, is typically shown that they inspection, like ask them what that actually means, it's typically sh**. really believe in solo scriptura. As such, we'll examine
3:16 four issues with solo scriptura and demonstrate why, for all intents and purposes, it cannot stand as a trustworthy or true doctrine to be held. And going off of that leads us straight into the first issue with solo scriptura, and that is that scripture itself doesn't list a canon of scripture. I call this simply the canon problem. as it can be explained simply as follows. Holy scriptures themselves do not list which writings are to be included in the set of inspired writings that we call the Bible or holy scripture. So if this is the case, and if scripture is the only authority, how do we know what books of the Bible are actually scripture? In other words, what is the epistemic foundation for calling one book of the Bible
4:02 holy and inspired scripture while calling another an uninspired holy and inspired scripture while calling a new book of the Bible? writing. This is the harsh truth. Many of those who hold to solo scriptura don't really ever think about these types of issues. They, instead, simply rely on the Bible that has been passed down to them, that is, the Protestant canon and Bible. This, arguably, breaks their solo scriptura doctrine though, as it reveals a reliance on an outside authority or tradition that is its reliance on an outside authority or tradition that is itself not found within the bounds of scripture. On the other hand, some who hold to this solo scriptura doctrine see it differently and argue that they can show how the canon of scripture can be formulated using only scripture. For example, one prominent attempt to reconcile this seeming
4:49 conundrum is a posit that we can know which books are scripture by noting which books quote from or reference each other. There is a major issue with this, though, There is a major issue with and that is that there are some books mentioned, referenced, or quoted in Scripture that those who hold to so low scriptura will not accept as inspired Scripture. For example, in the book of Jude, specifically Jude chapter 1 verses 14 and 15, Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, specifically 1 Enoch chapter 1 verse 9, which is not an inspired writing nor part of the canon of scripture. And this is not merely the case for the Protestant canon. The Catholic Scripture. And this is not merely the case for the Protestant canon. and Orthodox canons also do not contain Enoch. Now all of these traditions may see it as useful to read as it can give insight into the Jewish thought around the second temple period.
5:38 But that does not change the issue at hand here for solo scriptura. Because if quotation, mention, or reference is sufficient for addition into the biblical canon, then why isn't Enoch permitted? Additionally, there are references to traditions in the New Testament that are only mentioned in the deuterocanonical books. Most prominently, we find that in the book of John, it is recorded that Christ is at attendance at the Feast of Dedication, also known as Hanukkah. However, this feast is mentioned nowhere in the Protestant Old Testament. It is only recorded in the deuterocanonical books. or more specifically, 1st Maccabees chapter 4 verses 36 -59 and 2nd Maccabees chapter 10 verses 1 -8.
6:29 Again, this raises the question, does this mean that the books of Maccabees are permitted to be in scripture? Those who hold to so low scriptura would again seemingly answer that question with no. Finally, there is a glaring issue that most people do not see with this. canon formulation theory. This problem is found in the form of a book that is sitting in the Old Testament staring at those who read it. That book is the book of Esther. Here is the issue. If mention, reference, or quotation is the proxy by which we establish which books are to be included in Scripture and which books are not to be included in Scripture, then there is a major issue with the book of Esther. are not to be included in the scripture then there is a major issue with the book of esther as it is never quoted mentioned or referenced in any place throughout the rest
7:19 of the bible neither in the old testament or in the new testament this leads to a devastating question for those who hold to this attempt at reconciliation under your paradigm what justification is there for esther to be included in the canon of scripture the next attempt to reconcile solo scriptura and the canon is similar to the previous attempt. This attempt simply states that another common way to articulate which books are to be included in the canon of scripture, particularly in this specific case the books of the Old Testament, is to include a book in the canon if, and only if, Christ or an inspired New Testament writer quotes, mentions, or references it in their teachings or writing. or references it in their teachings
8:06 or writings. To debunk this only requires a single point. Jesus never quoted or referenced the following books. Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, or Zephaniah. And additionally, the New Testament writers as a whole never mention or explicitly quote from Ezra. Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, or Zephaniah. Additionally, the writers only mention historical events in Judges, never quoting the book of Judges itself, and they never mention any of the writings of the book
8:52 of Ruth, only mentioning Ruth's name. Given these facts, what justification is there for these being included in the Old Testament if they do not fit the criteria of New Testament quotation or Jesus quotation? The answer is, of course, that there is no justification for these books being in the Old Testament given these circumstances. Some may push back stating that there are allusions made in the New Testament to these books found in the Old Testament. However, this is problematic as there are arguably allusions made in the New Testament to some of the deuterocanonical books, which I will show on the screen now. Yet, these are not found in the Protestant Bible. If allusions are sufficient for inclusion in the biblical canon, then
9:40 why aren't the deuterocanonical books found here also included? Additionally, the sighting of Enoch, as mentioned a little while ago, would again prove to be problematic here. I believe it is safe to say that given these examples there is no solid foundation to state that scripture is determined by quotations, allusions, or references by Christ or the New Testament authors. Getting further into this, though, some may argue that if a scriptural author approves of or mentions another person, this mention gives the person mentioned authority to write and for their writings to be included in the biblical canon. Try to say that five times fast. On the surface, you may see how this makes Try to say that five times fast. sense. If one person is an
10:25 inspired writer, then seemingly their mention of another writer would imply that those writings are inspired. Or would it? There are going to be many overlapping issues here that are present in the two previous attempts to reconcile, and so I will only mention them briefly while adding another issue that is apparent here as well. First off, as with the two previous attempts to reconcile, the author of Esther, for example here, is never mentioned or approved of in any other passage of scripture. This would, seemingly again, result in us being forced to question whether or not Esther is actually inspired canonical book of the Old Testament. However, another issue is one that many forget. This point is admittedly less effective, but it is still a good rhetorical
11:13 point to make. There is an argument by some that Clement, as mentioned in the book of Philippians, is the church father Clement of Rome. This church father had many famous writings himself, for example, 1st Clement, which was written in the first century. Would this mean that 1st Clement is an inspired book, seeing as he was mentioned in the New Testament? It would seem quite obvious here that the answer would be no, of course not. Some may bring up the fact that there are many who do not believe the Clement Some may bring up the fact that there are many who do not believe mentioned in Philippians is actually Clement of Rome, and that is fair enough. I have not done enough research into this subject in particular, nor am I smart enough to give anything near a scholarly take on this particular issue. But we do not need this to be the case to bring up another rhetorical
12:01 point about this person. Even if this isn't the case, that is, that the Clement mentioned here is clement of rome then would the mention of this clement here is Clement of Rome. regardless in the book of philippians give the clement mentioned there authority to write inspired books of the bible again the answer is seemingly no even if the clement mentioned in philippians is noted as being a man whose quote name is mentioned in the book of life this does not mean he is an inspired writer a faithful servant based on the glowing review of Paul? Of course, absolutely. A man whose writings are inspired? No, not at all. Thus, yet again, this attempt to reconcile is found
12:47 to be wanting. Now, moving away from attempts that those who hold to solo scriptura make to formulate a biblical canon relying only on scripture, we'll move on to some additional issues that are present in solo scriptura in regards to the canon here, of course. First, there are books within the canon of scripture that are, for all intents and purposes, anonymous. The most famous New Testament example of this is the book of Hebrews. There is indeed a church tradition linking the authorship of Hebrews to Paul. However, operating on solo scriptura, we must use only the pages of scripture itself to determine its authorship. Here is the problem with that. If this is how we are to operate, then how do we prove that an anonymous book actually carries
13:34 apostolic authority with it? The challenge is that, again, if you want to link an anonymous book of the Bible to an apostolic source, then you must rely on the external historical testimony of people like the early church fathers, or you must rely on an external authority, which is the key point here. Second, in scripture, there is mention of writings by inspired writers, in this case, Paul, that have been lost to time. by inspired writers. For example, in Colossians 4, verse 16, Paul commands the Colossians to read a letter that he had written to the Laodiceans previously. In 1 Corinthians 5, verse 9, Paul makes mention of a letter that he had already written to the Corinthian people prior to the writing of 1 Corinthians.
14:21 Here's why this is a problem for so low scriptura. If metrics such as apostolic Here's why this is a problem for so low scriptura. authorship or mention within the texts themselves are metrics for what makes something scripture, then what happens if archaeologists discover the letter to the Laodiceans tomorrow, or the first letter to the Corinthians in this case? Are we free to reopen the case for the canon? I imagine many who adhere to so low scriptura would be very weary of Many who adhere to solo scriptura would be very weary of doing so. The issue here is simple. Solo scriptura provides no visible framework for knowing when and even if the canon of scripture is actually definitively closed. In fact, solo scriptura offers no real evidence for one why it should accept, say, the
15:10 Protestant canon over the Catholic canon. One may say that there are contradictions within the deuterocanonical books which prevent them. from being scripture, thus maintaining the use of solo scriptura to determine the canon. The problem here is that objections like these have been tackled by Catholics and Orthodox -like for some time now. On top of this, atheists make the same accusations of contradictions within the Protestant Old and New Testament scriptures. That is not even to take into account the fact that many adherents of solo scriptura vastly misunderstand the Catholic and... Orthodox positions on the deuterocanonical books. Regardless, again, the point here is only that relying purely on solo scriptura and leaving no room for any other authority on the matter of
16:00 the canon of scripture does not give a clear answer to whether or not the canon is truly closed or if it can be reopened. Finally, we come to the largest flaw for this line of reasoning in Solo Scriptura, and it largest flaw for this line. is simply that any attempt to try and find the scriptural canon within the books of scripture itself will be found to be circular. Think about it for a minute. To find the canon within scripture, we must first assume that the books we are finding the canon of scripture within are themselves already inspired and infallible scripture, Or in other words, they are already part of the canon. However, or in other words, that they are already part of the... this creates an issue. How do we know that the books we are finding the canon of scripture within are themselves scripture, or a part of the canon
16:51 of scripture? In order to validate this, we would have to point to yet another book that is in the canon of scripture. However, the book references would also have to be found to be a part of scripture itself, leading to a circle and importantly an infinite regress because of this it is clear to see that any appeal to locate the canon of scripture within the scripture alone will be found to beg the question and with that we can now move on to the second issue for solo scriptura which is that scripture itself points to authorities outside of scripture to start we can ask a simple question. If scripture is the sole rule of faith and morals, then why does ask a simple question if scripture is the sole scripture, within its own
17:37 borders, state that other external authorities exist? To detail this problem will not take long as it can be explained fairly quickly. In scripture, there are several points where external authority is granted and followed, thus showing an extra -biblical authority, which is described as being authoritative. One such case is the count described as being authoritative. One such case is the Council of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15. Here we find that a council was gathered to discuss whether or not Gentile converts to Christianity needed to follow the Old Covenant guidelines or not. Here it was decided that these converts would not need to follow the Old Laws and as such, things like circumcision were not necessary for salvation. In the language we
18:23 see regarding the council, it seems as though this decision was immediately binding. Those present at the council then could not go against this decision in preaching the opposite of what was decided there. This is important as it demonstrates the authoritative nature of this decision, even though this was not found in scripture. It was, at this point, only binding, a binding ruling decided via verbal communication, not written scripture. One might say that you can find later in the chapter that the decisions of the council was written down and sent out to surrounding churches, and thus this could constitute the scriptural element of it fulfilling solo scriptura's guidelines. The issue here is, again, that the ruling of the
19:10 council was authoritative immediately to those who were present at the council itself, not to those who simply read about its decision through a letter sent. Beyond this, again, it is of its decision through a letter sent. Beyond this, again, it is also important to realize that the council itself was acting in a way that would result in an authoritative decision. The council itself was not scripture. So then, we see that the council's decision at this point was an authority beyond the pages of scripture. It is important for this point to note that in this circumstance, it does not matter whether or not you believe this type of authority continued or that other future church councils were infallible. continued or that other future church The only relevant detail here is the fact that there was an authoritative decision that was made before the
19:57 scriptures that were relevant to the decision had been written. At this time, the Old Testament scriptures were widely available and in circulation in the church. However, the New Testament scriptures had not yet been fully written, compiled, and spread throughout the church as a whole. This is why an external source, or in this case a council, was used in order to come to an authoritative decision. Again, this does not mean that therefore future church councils are infallible. Rather, it just means that scripture itself indicates there are other external sources of authority that aren't strictly scripture. Beyond the council in Acts chapter 15, we also find further evidence of external sources of authority. For example,
20:42 in 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 15, we read the following, So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. This command given by Paul clearly states in an authoritative manner that the Thessalonians he is writing to are to maintain the traditions that he, as an authority, taught to them, even if they were only taught or given by he, as an authority, taught to them. Even if the Thessalonians were taught to them, even if spoken word. So then we see that this oral tradition that was passed on is deemed to be just as authoritative as the tradition that was written to the Thessalonians. We obviously do not know what the exact tradition here was that Paul is referencing, or the tradition that was passed
21:31 on by the Thessalonians. However, it is not necessary that we know. strictly for this point to stand what exactly the traditions were. What matters here is not the exact traditions that were passed down orally, but rather the fact that they did hold their authority apart from being written down or included within scripture. Thus, we see that there was an external authority apart from scripture here, yet again undercutting solo scriptura. With that, we arrive at the third issue and that is the fact that the With that, we arrive at the New Testament canon wasn't immediately available to the church. If the Bible is the only authority for church practice, doctrine, morals, and so on and so forth, then that would mean that the early
22:17 church would have not had any authority for years as the New Testament was not immediately available to the church upon Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. To illustrate this further, consider the following ideas. To begin, the first book of the New Testament, which was written, which was 1 Thessalonians, was not completed until an estimated 15 to 25 years after Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection. Because of this, if the New Testament writings were the only authority for matters of faith pertaining to the new covenant, then the church would have had to be suspended with then the church would have had to be suspended without an authority until at least this point in time. However keep in mind this is the first
23:04 book of the New Testament. The entire New Testament canon was not written in its entirety until nearly the end of the first century. The final book written in the New Testament was the book of Revelation which was not actually written until an estimated date of 96 to 98 AD which is right on the verge of the second century and more than 60 years after Christ's resurrection. Seeing as this is the case, we then have to conclude that the church would not have had a full complete authority under sola scriptura for nearly 60 years, and that is if we grant that they had an agreed upon canon immediately after Revelation is written. But that is exactly what brings us to the second issue here, the conundrum
23:50 regarding the is to the second issue here. The conundrum regarding the canon's availability to the church is not just about whether or not the scripture had been written yet. It extends further than this. The extension comes when we are forced to ask questions pertaining to the agreed -upon canon at the time. Here is the dilemma. Broadly, for the first 300 years of the church, there was no universally agreed -upon canon of scripture. The first time we start to get the idea that the church was coming to a canon that they could agree on was with Athanasius' Easter letter, which was written in 367 AD. idea that the church was coming to a canon that they could agree. This was followed by the synods of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397, when the church truly could say that they had an agreed -upon New Testament canon of
24:36 scripture. There were canon lists compiled from as early as the 2nd century. However, these lists varied greatly, and there was no... truly agreed upon list until the times listed previously. So then we are left to ask the questions. If there was no universal canon over until over 300 years after Christ's resurrection then how can we be sure that any given church society in ancient times had an absolute complete and full authority of scripture as required by solo scriptura? The answer seems to be, especially epistemically, that we do not have answer seems to be especially any absolute certainty, as we have no idea how the canon varied from city to city or from church
25:21 to church. The overarching point I wish to make here is simply that if we are to claim that the only source of authority for the church is the holy scriptures and that no other authority is to be applicable, then we are forced to say that the church was without a solid foundational authority for over 300 years since its beginning. The scriptures may have been written, but they were not gathered together, vetted, and fully agreed upon for many, many years. Finally, we arrive at the fourth and final problem with solo scriptura, and that is the practical inconsistency of solo scriptura. To demonstrate this final issue, we only need to observe how modern adherents actually operate and what we will find when we do this undoubtedly is
26:10 that in practice almost no one who claims to hold to solo scriptura actually does in practice to start many people accept traditions as authoritative while also holding to solo scriptura this is seemingly contradictory as tradition would be an outside authority and under solo scriptura there is no outside authority the bible is lo scriptura, there is no outside authority. The Bible is the only authority. A good example for this would be that of the Trinity. All Christians accept the term Trinity and the doctrine that comes with it as infallible, as well as believing that it is true and as well as being a requirement to be a Christian. In other words, all Christians agree that the Trinity is a foundational belief for Christianity and that you must
26:55 believe in it to be a Christian. The issue here is that the word trinity nor an advanced theological explanation of the doctrine is found in the bible sure you can argue that you can find the trinity within the bible and i would wholeheartedly agree that you can absolutely however the problem is that the word trinity is never found within scripture and yet it is the normative means of referring to the three persons of the godhead under solo scriptura how can one justify using this traditional language as authoritative? Even more so, how can one find it to be binding? This latter issue brings us to the next domain of inconsistency, and that is that if one wishes to define Christian orthodoxy by using traditional
27:44 language such as the Trinity and such, one must first prove that these doctrines are actually solely from scripture. The issue is that people for thousands of years have looked are actually solely from Scripture. The issue is that to only scripture for their doctrine and yet have come away with beliefs that all orthodox Christians who hold the solo scriptura would deem to be heretical. One such example of this is Arianism. Many people have used only scripture to come to the belief that Christ is a created being. This is a belief deemed to be heretical especially by the entire church but how under solo scriptura, can one actually define what is heretical or that Arianism, in this example, is actually heretical? If people who are Arians have used these scriptures to come to their
28:33 conclusion, how can the Orthodox Trinitarian holding to solo scriptura without appealing to outside sources show that their scriptural view of the Trinity Her scriptural view of the Trinity is the true one. The issue of using a doctrine found in historical, traditional Christianity as an authority in matters of faith and morals that pertains to orthodox, non -heretical Christianity is that there is no basis within solo scriptura that defines which beliefs and doctrines are heretical and which ones are not. It truly does boil down to one interpretation versus the other, which is problematic and that does not give us. the other, which is problematic and that that does not give us a solid basis for defining heresy. Furthermore, as an additional point,
29:19 many of those who hold to solo scriptura will say that they hold to no creed but the Bible. The irony of this statement is that it is, by definition, a creed. A creed is simply a statement of belief. By declaring no creed but the Bible, they have created a man -made creed to govern their theology. If you are going to live by such a creedal statement, what basis do you have for rejecting other man -made creeds? a creedal statement, what basis Considering these points, we see that this problem simply rears its heads as an inconsistency that is prevalent among those who hold to solo scriptura. Ultimately, due to the issues we have gone over, among many others actually, solo scriptura is found to be wanting. The problems are
30:04 simply too numerous for this particular doctrine to be a legitimate... and rational doctrine to be held. Naturally, the question that may come after this is, then what is the alternative to solo scriptura? And although it is beyond the scope of this particular video to explore that question, it is an incredibly important and foundational question that must be explored within the Christian worldview. I encourage you to do so just as I am currently doing. Hey everybody, thank you again for watching. I hope you enjoyed the second iteration of the teleprompter videos. It's getting a little bit easier, but also it's kind of hard to find the perfect way to set up and the perfect way to read the script without looking like I'm looking away at a camera, but I hope I'm doing my best. thank you again for watching. I hope you enjoyed this second.
30:50 Thank you guys so much for watching. I really appreciate it. Please let me know your thoughts down below about this video. Of course, the link to the audio version of this can be found in the description below if you want to listen to it. on Spotify. And as well as that, the article that this was written with can also be found in the Substack link below. Please check those out if you would like. And of course, if you like the video, please like it and subscribe to the channel if you've been enjoying this content. Share the video if you think it was worth being shared. And yet again, guys, just thank you so much for watching, and I hope that you have a very blessed day.
