Posted on 05/29/2017 9:42:08 AM PDT by NRx
Below is a short presentation I wrote this year for a discussion group I attend locally from time to time. I do not attempt to answer everything here or address objections. I specifically designed this piece to facilitate discussion so as to allow various objections to come out in due course. I did write it as part of a larger argument because I think it gets to the heart of the matter concerning Reformation disputes. That is, the argument is not over epistemological issues (how can we know the correct interpretation of scripture?) but rather normative issues (what interpretation of scripture is binding or obligatory?) So I think that framing the matter in this way helps to clear away much of the confusion over the Reformation’s formal distinctive that is left untouched by most discussions of this topic. I hope you find it profitable.
By Perry C. Robinson © 2017
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is one of two fundamental principles of the Classical Reformation traditions (Lutheran and Reformed). It is the formal principle of those traditions. [1] This is just to say that Sola Scriptura characterizes and structures all of Classical Protestant theology.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura historically faces a number of objections. Sola Scriptura is said to be unbiblical or unexpressed in the biblical corpus, Sola Scriptura is unworkable, etc. Here I want to focus on a specific objection to Sola Scriptura and the reply given to it by its defenders.
The objection comes in a variety of forms. Popularly, it is expressed by saying that Sola Scriptura makes every person their own pope or it makes the Bible a wax nose. Each person functions as their own authority with the Bible alone, disregarding all other ecclesial authorities. This falls afoul of any plausible biblical portrait of ecclesiology.
The now somewhat standard reply[2] is that Sola Scriptura does not eliminate all ecclesial authorities and doesn’t amount to making every person their own pope, but preserves a place for ecclesial authority relative to the individual Christian. The objection turns on confusing Sola Scriptura (SS1) with Solo Scriptura (SS2). SS1 places scripture as the highest formal and material authority with subordinate ecclesial authorities, such as pastors, synods, etc. Each of the subordinate authorities is fallible, whereas scripture is infallible. SS2 by contrast posits no subordinate authorities (either they are weakly unnecessary or strongly precluded) for the individual Christian. No ecclesial authority can bind or obligate the individual Christian on SS2. In this way, it is argued that the objection to SS1 turns on a strawman, confusing SS1 with SS2.
To see if this reply is successful, we need to take a look at an essential constituent of the concept of Sola Scriptura (SS1). SS1 has a variety of conceptual parts, ideas that make up the entire idea. One of those constituents is the Doctrine of the Right of Private Judgment (DRPJ).[3] Not often discussed, this is an essential or necessary constituent of SS1. I formulate the DRPJ roughly in the following way.
DRPJ: Any Christian individual is ultimately obligated to adhere to belief X, if and only if they judge (determine, assess, etc.) that belief X is scriptural.
The DRPJ can be seen to be expressed in the following sources.
“Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.”
Martin Luther @ the Diet of Worms, 1521.
“Although in the external court of the church every private person is bound to submit to the synodical decisions (unless he wants to be excommunicated), and such judgment ought to flourish for the preservation of order, peace and orthodoxy, and the suppression of heretical attempts; it does not follow that the judgment is supreme and infallible. For an appeal may always be made from it to the internal forum of conscience, nor does it bind anyone in this court further than he is persuaded of its agreement with the Scriptures.”
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Enlenctic Theology, vol 1, pp.161.
“What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.”
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 184.
So, on SS1 Luther is only ultimately obligated to assent to any given doctrine, if and only if, he judges it to be scriptural. That is, his conscience plays an ultimately normative role here. To say that some faculty functions in an ultimately normative role is to say that one is bound or obligated to assent to the judgments of that faculty without exception.
What is crucial to notice is that SS1 and SS2 both share the thesis of the DRPJ. The only difference is that SS1 has or allows for subordinate secondary authorities (depending on how strongly or weakly one glosses SS2).[4] Furthermore, on SS1 secondary authorities are not ultimately normative. That is, they bind the individual to a limited degree. What degree is that? On SS1, a secondary authority can bind the individual’s conscience to assent to a belief, unless the individual judges that the authority is wrong. In which case, the normative power of the secondary authority is trumped.[5]
It is also important to notice that adding secondary authorities as SS1 does, doesn’t weaken or alter the DRPJ in any way. One way to help get a hold of this point is to imagine two political scenarios. Imagine Country A which has a supreme court and many other subsidiary courts, and Country B, which has only a supreme court and no subsidiary courts. The fact that A has subsidiary courts and B does not, leaves the existence and ultimate legal normativity of a supreme court in both scenarios untouched.
Another way to think of it would be to imagine two countries C and D. Both countries leave the final judgment of what each law means and how far it extends to each individual citizen. But country C has many subsidiary courts below the authority of each citizen and country D does not. If any citizen of country C thinks the judgment of a court is wrong, he can appeal to his own judgment to override it. C therefore has steps one must pass through that D does not, but the locus and nature of ultimate legal normativity is the same.
Adding subsidiary authorities doesn’t make a substantial difference relative to the ultimate normativity of each individual’s judgment. Adding more pen-ultimate authorities below that of the individual conscience doesn’t touch the ultimate normativity of the individual’s conscience. That is, there is no substantial or principled difference between SS1 and SS2. And this is because they both endorse and entail the DRPJ.
Consequently, the only real authority on SS1 and SS2 is that of the individual conscience. Any appeal to scripture by an individual is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture and an interpretation of scripture that someone judges to be normative. Hence all judgments relative to scripture on both SS1 and SS2 are at bottom, appeals to the ultimate authority of individual consciences and nothing more.
So the question is, Are you flying Solo?
Endnotes
[1] The material principle being the doctrine of Sola Fide.
[2] This has been articulated by Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 2001
[3] Please note that the DRPJ is a distinctly Protestant thesis. Whatever members of other traditions do when they form judgments, it doesn’t constitute a case of Private Judgment properly speaking.
[4] What I mean here is the following. If SS2 allows for but doesn’t require any secondary authorities, then SS1 and SS2 are prima facia conceptually closer. If on the other hand, SS2 precludes any secondary authorities, then SS1 and SS2 are prima facia conceptually more distant.
[5] This usage, of course has no relation to the current President.
Excellent article. My question regarding Sola Scriptura is quite simple: which Bible?
In the English Language alone, more than 50 versions exist. Hmmm. I read the Latin Vulgate version because regarding matters of antiquity, it just makes sense to read the oldest (and ONLY Bible) of the first millennium.
12“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14“He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15“All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. John 16:12-15 NASB
26In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Romans 8:26-27 NASB
31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Romans 8:31-35 NASB
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Gen 3:15 DOUAY-Rheims
Even with such a glaring error as this one as noted by the Catholic Encyclopedia online which has lead to so much error in Roman Catholicism.
The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
I’d be curious if Perry believes Christ died for our sins on Good Friday, in accordance with Rome-
Or as the Passover Lamb, in accordance with ‘Scripture’.
one is sola and solo Roma and one is sola and solo scriptura.
the more one leans toward sola AND solo scriptura, the more they will be blessed to have eyes to see the difference..
Wow. If that's what it took for you to argue against what the Catholic Church does, you don't have much of an argument. Pity you're unable to do it by logic and analysis, only by cheap shots.
I know that this usage didn't begin with this author, but does this "solo scriptura" have any name that isn't potentially confusing and doesn't look just like bad Latin?
#8
>>#2 I never mentioned the Catholic Church in my posting.<<
The drunken pedophile priests that you mentioned in your post were Anglican??
ealgeone wrote:
“and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” ( Genesis 3:15 ). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
The part following, which was NOT quoted by ealgeone reads as follows:
The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent.
Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.
I did not mention a denomination regarding these priests as I recognize there are errant minsters preying on children in many different churches. I regard this as another reason for sola scriptura. The clergy are to adhere to the highest standards to be worthy of their office. The Bible is our guide on conduct.
We can agree on that much. The rest we cannot.
My question regarding Sola Scriptura is quite simple: which Bible?
In the English Language alone, more than 50 versions exist. Hmmm. I read the Latin Vulgate version because regarding matters of antiquity, it just makes sense to read the oldest (and ONLY Bible) of the first millennium.
I only posted the one sentence from the Catholic Encyclopedia online in response to your post to illustrate that antiquity doesn't always mean accuracy as that was the one part of the text that was pertinent to the discussion. I was trying to avoid discussing the errors of the RCC teachings on the immaculate conception.
So we all have an understanding of the full paragraph in question I've produced it here.
The astute will note Roman Catholicism's own encyclopedia which bills itself as "the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history." notes there is no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma [Immaculate Conception...brackets mine] can be brought forward from Scripture.
I have bolded in black what heterosupremacist left out. And for good reason from the Roman Catholic perspective. Red text is the part I first posted. Blue text is what heterosupremacist posted. Sentence breaks are mine and are added to illustrate what was posted by who and when.
Proof from Scripture
Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium ), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman : "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" ( Genesis 3:15 ).
The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
I was trying to limit the discussion to the topic at hand. If you want to continue to have a discussion on the immaculate conception we can...because there's a lot more in the article that isn't friendly to the RCC position on this issue.
The above presents quite the problem for both sides. If a person in authority is in error than that means they are a usurper and must be disowned or even put to death. Also if apostolic succession is true then we should see constant correction in the like of Paul occurring today.
With the above said remember one of Paul's biggest concerns with the growing Church. It was the Jews who were still arguing whether or not circumcision, eating meat, working on the Sabbath, etc. were sinful or if certain laws needed to be kept to keep or earn one's salvation.
Interesting that pretty much all of the responses ignored the post and instead chose to launch an attack on the Roman Church. Neither Robinson nor I are Catholics. Hmm...
Ha ha I caught that. I expected it to go to 500 posts or so before someone pointed out it was from an Orthodox Christian perspective, not a Catholic one.
Freegards
I've read enough in other threads that I wasn't surprised to notice what you noticed. Many people don't recognize the clue in a name like "Energetic Processions." Also, as the length of an open thread in the Religion Forum increases, the probability that the thread includes some "attack on the Roman Church" approaches 1.
quote-Interesting that pretty much all of the responses ignored the post and instead chose to launch an attack on the Roman Church. Neither Robinson nor I are Catholics. Hmm...
One need not be ‘Roman Catholic’ to follow Rome- I didn’t realize I was following Rome as a Protestant, But then He showed me how simple it was to be following sola and solo roma and not Him..
It’s baked into our cake from an early age as we are, like it or not, roman citizens.
simple example:
Orthodox and Protestants still, even as non Catholics, have a Roman Friday/Saturday/Sunday to your 1st importance of the gospel, right?
Or do they follow the Scriptura of Passover/Unleavened Bread/First Fruits? The one Paul taught? In Accordance with the Scriptures?
I ask because as a Protestant, I didn’t know there was a difference, and there is a difference. and it’s subtle.
In the Scriptures, The Father’s Passover is always His 6th and final Work day on His calendar- not so on the roman calendars the world uses. That means those days Paul discussed in His letter to the Corinthians, Passover, Unleavened Bread and First Fruits, are the Father’s 6th/7th/1st day-
Rome doesn’t follow that- they’ve ‘changed times’ to put it bluntly.
Big deal? Small deal?
Well, that little difference can show that Rome not only has another gospel (another 1st importance of the gospel), they have another Jesus (a roman Jesus according to their calendar and catechism)
And I would guess that most Protestants and Orthodox have the same Roman Jesus. They just celebrate Him at different times because of the differences in the two roman calendars.
I can state, because of my own journey to Sanctification in His Word, Protestants and Orthodox are more sola and solo Roma than they dare even test- and won’t be able to see it.
If they do start to ask, seek and knock like I did, they’d want nothing to do with Rome..
And something seemingly simple and harmless as a roman calendar can be shown to be false with ‘sola and solo scriptura. That’s the power of His Scriptura.
Where does that leave the followers of rome’s calendars?
Accepting Rome’s premise and false importance of the gospel and false Christ.
His Word is Truth and being Sanctified in it, is our goal. And frankly, too many have accepted Rome- even Orthodox.
In these end times that is either a big nothinburger, or it can explain why it reads in the last book of the bible that satan deceives the whole world.
Again, one need not be Catholic, to follow Rome. As a ‘Protestant’ I never knew how enslaved I was to Rome. Till He set me free.
And her protestant daughters and orthodox daughters may not know how enslaved they are to Rome.
Christianity today is Roman. And they may not see it yet.
In time, I pray they will.. For His Glory!
What is interesting is that the Vulgate Bible was created so that Romans who did not know Greek, could read the Bible in their native tongue. It is too bad that this practice (having a Bible in the native tongue) was abandoned, and even forbidden, for more than a millennium after it was written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.