Does "Sola Scriptura" have a place in the Postmodern World?

In an effort to drum up support for the upcoming Carnival of the Reformation, I thought I would throw out a few teasers to get folks thinking and to hopefully spur some folks on to do some creative writing and posting that could be entered in the Carnival.

The first carnival will be devoted to the theme of "Sola Scriptura." I am wondering if I could challenge somoene, or several someone's to write a response to the question "Does the doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura' have a place in the Postmodern World?"

I ask that in light of these words from the Open Source Theology Website. In an entry titled "Can Faith Be Based on a Book?" someone wrote:

So is the Bible the word of God? I see the evolution of the early church and the authorship of the Gospels in particular too often debated elsewhere. The very nature of Jesus' ministry and being appears to be more open to debate than is discussed here. Can an emergent church truely avoid this issue and could a future church follow the teachings of Jesus while separating God's purpose for him from God's being and from the politics and confusion of his early followers?

Is a faith felt warmly in my heart a function of my soul's connection with God or is it learned from books, or am I being assimilated, brainwashed or merely habit forming. Can a psychiatrist tell the difference?

Is the real question: What does my heart tell me God intended for Jesus and what I should do about it, rather than what does a book men wrote tell me I should believe about Jesus?

Here are a few of the responses in the comment section that were generated from that post:

Presumably the 'fundamental questions' that you refer to have to do with whether we can have any real confidence in the Bible as a historical document. If so, I would personally regard that as an entirely valid concern, particularly in view of the traditions of critical scholarship that have shaped how we read historical texts. I would argue, however, that critical biblical scholarship has been, on the whole, no less polemical, prejudiced and reactionary than conservative biblical scholarship, but my impression is that we are currently at the point where a more credible and defensible reading of the Bible is beginning to emerge somewhere between the two positions. I think the emerging church needs to get hold of this reading.

And:

Albannach, the texts that together make up what we call the "Bible" never refer to scripture as the "word of god," so it seems that it would be a mistake to do so even for those who have a high view of scripture. Specific sayings that are contained within scripture are referenced as the "word of god," but never scripture itself. "So is the Bible the word of God?" It seems to me that it would be unbiblical to say so.

I think you are correct that it is implausible to base Christian faith upon the Bible. The most plausible basis (indeed the only available basis) for the Christian faith is the practices of communities that believe that God was acting for the sake of humanity in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. What we believe about the status of the Bible can only be derived from a prior belief about the status of Jesus. That prior belief about the status of Jesus is reasonable or unreasonable to the extent that specific Christian communities are embodying their beliefs about Jesus and his God in such a way that the community and its practices form an inhabitable life-world, that is, a lived-out interpretation of reality, that to some degree demonstrates to the world God's intent for human existence.

So, does the doctrine of Sola Scriptura have anything to say here? Anyone want to take up the challenge and address this for the carnival?

Comments

[Jeff the Baptist]

Well Timothy shreds the written entirely by men argument: "All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching..."

Similarly the faith needs no scripture argument is widely debunked in scripture. I believe 1 John tells us to test the spirits which lead us under scriptures light. Similar commands are also found in the Torah regarding the false prophets. Unrelatedly, Paul has a big section in Romans on the usefulness of the law in highlighting transgressions which require repentance.

My problem with the Sola Scriptura is not the Scriptura, but the Sola. The bible does not say that scripture is the only source for divine revelation, just that any revelation must be able to be conformed to the truth of scripture. The bible is a measuring stick for all other forms of divine revelation. Its the starting place and foundation but not the only place.

[Jeremy Pierce]

Jeff, I'm pretty confident that what you're saying is consistent with what the Reformers meant by Sola Scriptura.

[Rey]

Perhaps it would be best to define the term. Both sides are using the same term but potentially mean different things...

[brad]

There is a reason that the world or the Open Theology folk pose the question in the first place, and it is one to our shame. The evidence that the church is to give for the reality of the bible is the reality of a morally distinct life. If we look like Jesus looks in the book, then it isn't a hard leap to say the Jesus of the book is a historical reality. This is the meaning of Jesus' "salt and light" exhortations and "they will know you are Christians...". The evidence of the miraculous nature of Scripture and the miraculous content of scripture is the stunning moral distinction of the church. In other words, if we desire to say "the testimony of scripture is true", it is essential that the church is the evidence of it. Yes, the foundation of the church is laid by the apostles via the apostoic testimony of scripture, but the only way God has given for us to testify to this reality is by ourselves having a story that gives evidence of the authenticity of the message.

A reformation does need to take place in the church that accepts that we no longer live in a world where the authority of scripture is a given. Therefore, no longer are we able to say simply, "the Bible says". Instead, we must show that the bible is real by having the life the bible speaks about alive in the church. Then, we are able to turn to the scriptures alone to lead others to the well from which we drink.
God Bless,
brad

[Joel]

Jeff, I can agree with the first part (I'm a Papist) but I have to disagree slightly with the second. The "faith once delivered" is the starting point, and it's preserved in both Scripture and Church. However, you're right that it's the measuring stick, and it serves to keep the Church from error.