Protecting Sola Scriptura from Sophism, Part I: Introduction to the Problem

 I suspect that you’ve listened to countless debates and read countless books concerning issues that seem to all come down to the way someone interprets the Bible. Many people just throw up their hands and pick a position because they just cannot figure out which interpretations are true. So many things sound reasonable to them. The Bible just seems to be a giant inkblot and every man, woman, and child subjects its meaning to his own whims. Who can really come up with the authorial intent when possibilities seem endless. Language can be bent left and right to support multiple views of just about any subject one might imagine.

This all simply leads to a claim that we believe in an impotent sola Scriptura, and therefore, an impotent Bible, that cannot lead us to any absolute and convicting truth that must be proclaimed authoritatively to the exclusion of all other truth claims, as long as the Bible can be used to support them. Our claims to have the Bible as our supreme authority are negated as soon as we start to argue from other sources of authority and abandon the Bible as sufficient to accomplish the goal, or as soon as we start using the Bible as a support absent of its proper exegesis and logical application. 

What I want to do today is to discuss one major means to figuring out who is making a biblical argument and who is only seemingly making one. It is my contention that many are simply duping themselves and their hearers due to a lack of paying attention to the distinctions between logic and rhetoric.

I would argue that Scripture is built upon the principles of logic because it is communicated through the logic of language. Regardless of what language one speaks, there are universal principles of communication to which everyone who wishes to understand or be understood must adhere. This means that language not only has a logical base but it also functions with a logical trajectory. What that means is that, not only must it be interpreted within the logical parameters of its linguistic principles but it must also be applied in logical trajectories that are connected to its base. Hence, there are logical and illogical inferences that arise either from the logic of the language or from that which is in opposition to its logic.

I would argue that those who are arguing from the logical base of the language of a text and its inferences can be identified as those who are exegeting Scripture and applying it within the parameters of that logical base in distinction from those who are using Scripture as a part of a rhetorical argument that seeks to persuade by whatever means necessary.

In the former, the argument is filled with a logical use of grammar, syntax, lexicography, genre study, literary context, historical context, and canonical context along with logical arguments that do not utilize fallacious reasoning to come to their inferences of any further implications of the text and its applications.

In the latter, some of the elements of exegesis are ignored or unknown to the interpreter and/or logical fallacies are used to obtain an inference or application that is not supported by the logical base of the language used in the text.

I would further argue that this is the difference between the use of the Bible by a logician and a rhetorician. One gives rise to argumentation that upholds the doctrine of sola Scriptura and one upholds a type of argumentation that gives rise to sophistry.

Sophistry is derived from the Greek Sophists who did not necessarily believe that objective truth existed, or that it could be known if it did. Because of this, they argued to persuade others using whatever means possible: arguments from authority, tradition, emotion, experiential reasoning, ad hominem, consensus, etc.

Because sophistry tries to persuade rather than to come to the knowledge of what is absolutely true, its arguments are not directed toward discovery of what is true but rather an assumption of the chosen position, regardless of its actual truth, that must be supported by whatever means possible. This also means that Scripture becomes one of the many things used in order to persuade a hearer of that position rather than the ultimate authority that is mined for its intended meaning.

What I am trying to get at here today is that if we do not practice a logical understanding of language in our interpretations and applications of Scripture then we are liars when claiming to adhere to sola Scriptura. In order to truly uphold that doctrine, we must respect not only what God communicated, but how He communicated it. That is to say, that if God communicated to us, we do not respect His Word unless we also respect the logic of communication that participates with God in good faith to receive the intended meaning and applications of that communication.

Now, how does this all help us discern what is argued in debates and books and sermons and on social media or at the Thanksgiving table? If someone is using a rhetoric that misuses the logic of exegesis, i.e., eisegetes by leaving out the necessary elements to do so, or argues illogically either by false inference or one of the many other ways of appealing to alternate authorities, as the few mentioned above, rather than logically exegeting the text and logically inferring its applications in order to support their point, this person’s conclusions are to be discarded as having been legitimately substantiated.

It is not enough to proclaim that we all believe in the ultimate authority in the Bible. If our arguments do not conform to that proclamation we will find ourselves arguing as mouthpieces of the devil instead of God. As the Christian life must not only proclaim truths in declarations but also with displays of the applications of those truths, so also the proclamation of sola Scriptura must not only be proclaimed but displayed in our arguing for our positions.

It might seem that everyone is doing this, but to the trained ear, that is a far cry from the truth. Most people who are arguing from the Bible are actually not holding positions that are logically supported by it if proper exegesis and the logical inferences thereof were being deployed.

Most people do not realize they are doing this. Most people eisegete and then call it exegesis. Most people argue for applications that are merely false inferences, having added additional assumptions into the text. 

In no way do I mean to imply that people are doing this from some sort of malicious intent. We are simply a culture that has been saturated with poor logic and an abuse of language. We are more emotional than rational, more needing to be affirmed than reproved, more dependent upon traditions and peer pressure than we would like to admit. But God must be exalted above all of this, and we who proclaim His Word to others must make sure of the quality of our arguments before they leave our tongues lest we give the impression that the Bible is only one of many authorities, or worse, that God has produced nothing better than an inkblot that is incapable of giving any sure direction toward which we must sail.