The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

Over the next several days I will be publishing a series of posts on the Five Solas. The Five Solas are five Latin phrases (or slogans) that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarize the Reformers' basic beliefs and emphasis in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. "Sola" means "alone". These five points represent a remarkably precise and enduring summary of the Christian faith.

While most Christians will agree with these points in principle, I’ve noticed that many aren’t able to argue for the accuracy of them using Scripture. For example, the first Sola we will explore is Sola Scriptura or “Scripture Alone.” Most Christians will agree that the Bible is our only source of authority and other sacred writings (such as the Book of Mormon), Church traditions, or men’s opinions are all subservient to the Bible. Yet how many Christians are able to defend this view of Scripture using only Scripture? It would be the height of hypocrisy to insist the Bible is the final source of authority if the Bible itself does not make that claim!

The most obvious passage dealing with the idea of Sola Scriptura could be nothing else than 2 Timothy 3:15-17:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

We see from this passage the following things:

>That the Scriptures are given by God.
>That the Scriptures are inerrant (how else could all Scripture be profitable?)
>That Scripture alone is able to make us “wise unto salvation”
>That with just the Scriptures we may be perfect and “thoroughly furnished unto all good works”

That single passage stands on its own merit and little more needs to be discussed. However, some groups may claim to agree with the above passage but at the same time will say that they have some other revelation in addition to the Scripture. If that is true, then it isn’t Scripture alone – it’s Scripture plus some other revelation.

Some groups, for example, claim that they hold either traditions or teachings that must be read, followed, or understood before a follower can correctly understand the Bible. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are renowned for their “Bible study” groups. They print Bible study material such as the Watch Tower magazine which they claim is necessary to correctly understand the Scriptures. The organization actually discourages members from reading the Bible independently of the supporting material which they provide.

For people who believe that such instruction is necessary to correctly understand the Bible, I direct you to 2 Peter 1:20:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

There is no secret understanding of Scripture. The Bible says what it means – plainly. There ordinary understanding of a passage is the correct one and no other material is necessary to discover some other meaning. If someone claims that a passage means something other than what an ordinary reading reveals, great care should be taken to not let such a person deceive you (2 Corinthians 11:3-5).

Another claim held by some groups is to have additional Scriptures. The Mormons, for example, claim to have a companion to the Bible, The Book of Mormon. To them I would say that the cannon of Scripture is closed. Nothing more can be added or taken from the Scriptures. Consider Revelation 22:18-19:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The Scriptures alone are our revelation from God. No other man or book can have revelation which contradicts the Scripture. The Bible alone is sufficient and everything the God wanted to know about Him is contained therein.

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 2: Sola Fide

The Five Solas Part 3: Sola Gratia

The Five Solas Part 4: Solus Christus

The Five Solas Part 5: Soli Deo Gloria

Some More Comments About Sola Scriptura

The Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle: It Could Happen!

The Bombardier Beetle is a remarkable creature with an ingenious defense mechanism. Whenever it is threatened, it releases a boiling hot, noxious gas into the face of its attacker. This is accomplished with the aid of two sacks in the beetle’s abdomen, each holding a different chemical (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide) which, when combined, explode and become an effective deterrent.

The question is how could a creature, through a series of random, undirected mutations, evolve to have two chemicals that react so violently with each other? One false step in the supposed evolutionary pathway and the poor critter would blow itself up!

The example of the bombardier beetle is an often used as evidence for design. Simply put, God made the beetle the way it is. But the example is so common that evolutionists have attempted to address the example directly. The following rebuttal is taken from the pro-evolution site, Talkorigins.org:

1. This is an argument from incredulity. It is based in part on an inaccurate description of how the beetle's bombardier mechanism works, but even then the argument rests solely on the lack of even looking for evidence. In fact, an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997). One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:

a. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce
other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.

b. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).

c. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more
quinones appear in the exuded product.

d. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).

e. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.

As I read that response, I noticed a glaring flaw in it. Perhaps you can see it as well. This supposed “plausible sequence” is nothing more than story telling. Where is the “scientific” evidence for this scenario? Is there a fossil sequence showing these various stages? The footnotes notwithstanding, this is conjecture and nothing more.

As one who recognizes logical fallacies, I am aware of the argument of incredulity and I try to avoid it. I think complexity is evidence of design but not necessarily proof of design. When you have incredible creatures, we can ask ourselves which better explains the existence such a creature - evolution or design? The Bombardier beetle is an example of a complex creature but there are innumerable examples of complexity in nature. The human eye is another example. I've seen Dawkins animated video but it's simply another made up story. No such progression of the eye is found in the fossils of supposed human ancestors. When Behe raised the issue of IC in his example of the flagellum, we once again began to hear the "plausible sequences" being trotted out.

Does anyone remember Judy Tenuta? She was a comedian from the 80’s who played the accordion in her show. She was really funny. I’ve posted a little clip of her below. It’s probably a PG rated bit; there’s no bad language but there is some innuendo and some irreligious humor. Anyway, one thing Judy would do it make some outrageous comment like she and Pope would astral project. When the audience laughed she would look around and say, “It could happen!” She was very funny.

It occurred to me that much of evolution is story telling. The evolutionists’ “explanation” of the bombardier beetle, the human eye, and the flagellum are all just invented “plausible sequences.” That’s the functional equivalent of saying, “It could happen. Scientists invent fantastic stories without even shred of evidence beyond saying that it could happen!!

It was funnier when Judy said it.

Peppered Moth Evolution?

I’ve blogged before about how some people use the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” Though the creationists who use these terms are well meaning, I discourage their use. It leads to confusion because evolutionists conflate the two.

The peppered moth is a famous example of “microevolution.” You may recall seeing it in your biology text book. It’s considered a text book example of evolution via natural selection. Of course, it might fit the definition of evolution, but I think it’s perhaps the worst example of evolution I’ve ever seen (micro- or otherwise).

As I’ve said, evolutionists tend to conflate micro- and macroevolution. Regarding the peppered moth, Wikipedia said this:

“Critics have argued that the "peppered moth story" showed only microevolution, rather than speciation or other changes at the larger macroevolutionary scale. Biologists agree that this example shows natural selection causing evolution within a species, demonstrating rapid and obvious adaptiveness with such change, and accept that it is not proof of the theory of evolution as a whole. However, though creationists accept "microevolution" of varieties within a "kind", they claim that "macroevolution" does not happen. To biologists there is no dividing line between the two, and in the modern evolutionary synthesis the same mechanisms are seen operating at various scales to cause both evolution within species and speciation at a macroevolution level or wider changes, the only difference being of time and scale.”

You can see that the clear implication is that microevolution + time = macroevolution. The tiny changes (microevolution), like we saw in the peppered moth, over long periods of time, will lead to larger changes (macroevolution) in the species.

But here’s the rub. The peppered moth population comes in a variety of shades from light to dark. Before the industrial revolution, the light colored moths blended well with the lichens on the trees. Consequently, birds would tend to eat the dark colored moths more often and so the population of moths was mostly light.When the industrial revolution began, soot would settle on the trees and kill the lichens. Then the dark moths were better camouflaged and so the birds would tend to eat the light moths more often. Consequently, the dark moths became dominant.Today, industry has cleaned up considerably and soot is no longer dirtying up the trees. Consequently, the moth population has returned to the pre-industrial ratio of mostly light.

So here's the question. It's been more than a century since the peppered moth study. What "macroevolution" has occurred? Now, I know what you're going to say. 100 years isn't enough time. But think very carefully and tell me this: what "microevolution" has occurred in the last 100 years? Don't think too hard because I'm going to tell you. None. The ratio of light/dark moth varies a little over time to a net gain of zero. There was not even microevolution!

In this textbook example of “evolution,” there has been no change in the population. Not even a little one. The accumulative effect of microevolution has achieved nothing more than breaking even. As I’ve often said that time is not the hero of evolution.

Is Fox News Culpable?

OK, I admit it – I was watching Keith Olbermann again. Even though the guy is a rabidly hostile liberal who has been known to get my ire up, there’s still a certain comedy factor in watching him. It’s sort of like watching a YouTube video of a professional ice-skater who falls down 5 times during a performance. This guy just has no clue of what he’s doing. Anyway, he’s now holding Fox News (Bill O’Riley in particular) accountable for the shooting death of abortionist, Dr. Tiller.

On his show, Countdown, Olbermann played a montage with video clips of Fox News reporters discussing Tiller including a clip of O’Riley calling him “Tiller the Baby Killer.” According to Olbermann, it’s this kind of rhetoric that incited suspect Scott Roeder to carry out the murder. Never mind that one news source reported that Roeder has a criminal past and “has expressed anti-abortion opinions on sympathetic Web sites.” Never mind that there are about 2 million hits on Google discussing Tiller – including sites like chargetiller.com (which has since been taken down). No, according to Olbermann, he didn’t get the idea until he heard O’Riley talking about it! Let me ask you, Olbermann, could it simply be that the doctor had done 60,000 abortions that might have inflamed Roeder to take action?

It should go without saying that I condemn the murder of Dr. Tiller. Vigilantism is not how we exercise justice in the US. And a violent act like this certainly does nothing to help reduce the number of abortions but actually hurts the Pro-Life movement.

It’s obvious that Olbermann is using this tragic event to advance his war against Fox News. It’s shameful the way he’s acting. If he wants to equate reporting on controversial topics with inciting violence then I would say Olbermann has blood in his hands as well.

How many times have we heard people on the left accuse Bush of starting an “illegal war”? Ever heard Cheney called a “war criminal”? And certainly one hot topic in the news has been the flap over the interrogation techniques used shortly after 9/11. The left is quite to characterize them as torture and demand that the people in question be held accountable for their “crimes.”

Just last month, in a commentary directed to President Obama, Olbermann had this to say regarding the “torture”:

Indeed we must [resist the forces which divide us], Mr. President. And the forces of which you speak are the ones lingering — with pervasive stench — from the previous administration. Far more than a criminal stench, Sir. An immoral one. One we cannot let be re-created… This country has never "moved forward with confidence" without first cleansing itself of its mistaken past… [t]hat means prosecuting all those involved in the Bush administration's torture of prisoners.

There you go, Olbermann condemned “all those involved” in the torture of prisoners. Now someone has taken him up on it. The Drudge Report said today:

An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another. Police believe that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 24, shot the men "with the specific purpose of targeting military personnel." [emphasis added]

Didn’t the people on the right say that if we release information about the interrogation of terrorist suspects that it might put our troops into harms way? It looks like now it may have happened. Mr. Olbermann, when can we expect your apology for your incendiary words?

You folks at MSNBC need to cut it out already. This feeble attempt to lay blame on Fox News for merely reporting the activities of a serial abortionist is beyond the pale.

Hey, wait a minute! Maybe the big three networks were all in on the Kennedy assassination conspiracy and only reported the incident to inspire Ruby to kill Oswald! Excuse me while I call Oliver Stone.