James Swan: Begging the Question on Sola Scriptura

James Swan left the comment below on James White's A&O blog. He gives the following flawed argument to defend the erroneous doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

"How do you know that the Holy Scripture is all you need? What tells you that? Might you need a God-led authority (like the Roman Catholic Church) to tell you that?" This was a question I recently came across from the depths of cyberspace. It's a question sharply aimed against sola scriptura, but it's a false question attacking an incorrect understanding of sola scriptura. Underlying this question is the assumption that the Sacred Scriptures are not enough to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. There must be something else a believer needs, like an infallible magisterium.

One part of this question is indeed true: if God's voice of special revelation is found somewhere else besides the Bible, Christians are obligated to seek out that voice, and follow it with their entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture. The burden of proof then lies on those who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures. If God's infallible voice is extant today somewhere else, sola scriptura is refuted. If God's voice is found in an infallible magisterium or unwritten traditions, sola scriptura is refuted.

This is why those of us defending sola scriptura constantly ask those attacking it to produce what they claim to have. If they have God's special revelation elsewhere, throw it on the table and let's get a good look at it."

My response:
First of all Swan makes just as bad of an argument as the one he is opposing, assuming that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith. He complains that it is erroneous to start from the premise that Scripture is not enough as a sole rule of faith, and then he turns around and begs the question in the opposite direction. Swan then makes the statement which claims that if God's voice is indeed found somewhere else other than Scripture, then we must listen to it. He assumes that the oral Word is nonexistent.

What Mr. Swan fails to recognize is that Scripture itself tells us that God's voice is found somewhere other than Scripture. Below are just a few passages that prove this premise.

1 Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:1-2)

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thes, 2:14)

16 He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. (Luke 10:16)


We also know that before the New Testament Scriptures were ever written, or even contained among the Christian communities, it must be acknowledged that God's voice, (Word or Divine Revelation) was carried by oral Tradition. This fact cannot be denied. The problem for Swan is that he is assuming that God's voice completely moved or changed from an oral proclamation to a strict written form. Of course this would be begging the question once again. Nowhere do we find the oral Word of God being completely replaced with the written testimony of the New Testament Scriptures in the early church. Surely such an event would have been noted among the early Christians. Once the Scriptures were accepted in the early church, they were recognized as being a written testimony to some of what had been passed on orally. They never proclaimed that they replaced anything. They were simply hailed and revered for what they were, just as the Catholic church does today.

For Swan to assume that the Scriptures alone are sufficient as the only rule faith is committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. He just assumes it to be true because he simply wants it to be. He will not intellectually look at the Scriptural and historical evidence before him, which attests to the fact that an oral proclamation preceded the written, and that the written has never been acknowledged to have completely replaced the old oral proclamation of the Gospel. Until Swan can come back and prove that this event actually happened, then he is stuck with a self refutation of his own begging the question. 

Swan's argument amounts to nothing more than, "Since Scripture is God's written Word, and it exists, it has to be the only rule of faith." I am afraid this is not a sound rational argument. The sound rational argument claims the following: God's oral Word existed by the mere fact that it preceded the written Word in regards to the New Testament. The New Testament itself also attests to God's oral Word existing in the Church by the proclamation of the NT writers. We know that the NT is authentic because God's oral Word has revealed that to us, therefore we must acknowledge and give our assent to both the oral and written Word of God. This is the only logical conclusion to arrive at. Unless Swan can prove that the oral Word was unconditionally replaced by Holy Writ, then his argument is dead. 

Begging the question is what one does in an argument when one assumes what one claims to be proving.

An argument is a form of reasoning whereby one gives a reason or reasons in support of some claim. The reasons are called premises and the claim one tries to support with them is called the conclusion.

If one's premises entail one's conclusion, and one's premises are questionable, one is said to beg the question.