Asking If Sola Scriptura Is an Oxymoron

Doug Chaplin has written a blog entry entitled "Is 'the Bible alone' an oxymoron?"  His thesis is that since the diverse, individual books of scripture were developed in a specific community context, they cannot rightfully be considered a single flow of thought and purpose apart from a "church" context.  As I was reading it and the comments, the idea struck me that Chaplin had asked the correct question but for the wrong reason.

The Westminster Confession defines Sola Scriptura this way:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (Chapter 1, paragraph 6).

This assumes that God has revealed himself to mankind in a recognizable way, and we understand that to be through the accumulated writings of the apostles and prophets which are acknowledged to have been given at various times and ways over the course of centuries.

Note especially the phrase "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture."  The divines are to be commended for adding this vital piece, because it acknowledges the formation of a body of orthodox doctrine that Tertullian referred to as "the rule of faith" (regula fidei) which he described as

that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh.  This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.

Prescription Against Heretics, cap. XIII

So to refine the WCF, I would have added that there was and is that faith once for all delivered to the saints and carried forward by godly men as they entrusted the Word of God to faithful men being able to teach others.  This was accomplished by taking what had already been revealed by God and adding to it the new revelation, whenever it came, then asking:

• How does the new instruction fit with the old?
• What, if anything, has changed from the old?
• What does the new tell about the old?
• How do we practice the new instruction?

We then come to a more full theology of a matter and live based on that.  This process stops when special revelation stops.  On a macro level, this is different from what Roman Catholics do by continuing to create canon law ex cathedra.  Protestants do not work at creating something new, but continually re-check their doctrine and practice according to the body of apostolic teaching and make necessary adjustments—semper reformanda.  This can be applied on a micro level, we faithfully pass on from one generation to the next what the apostles gave us and make adjustments where needed, not as individuals but in a multitude of counselors.

Going back to the original question then, is Sola Scriptura an oxymoron?  No, if one assumes the WCF understanding of that phrase in its limited definition; yes, if we think that one can pick up a Bible and formulate a fully-orbed, correct understanding of the doctrines contained therein without help from those older in the faith.