A critique of the evangelical doctrine of solo scriptura

The Highway ^ | Keith Mathison

[lockeliberty]

ping

[RnMomof7]

ping

[ppaul]

Heresy Happens

[lockeliberty]

what's your point?

[RnMomof7]

Excellent article Lock..The truth is our spiritual forefathers all brought their own bias to the scriptures and each of us do

We can pray for wisdom and discernment but we are still fallible.

It is the rejection of the early creeds that marks cults..

[AnalogReigns]

WOW!!! Very relevant.

I'd like to read the earlier articles he refers to about what sola scriptura properly is.

Here he demonlishes "solo scriptura....", now let's hear what the classical sola formulation means....minus the invidualistic perversion of it.

[AnalogReigns]

Many of the objections he brings up are exactly what Roman Catholics have criticized the evangelical/Protestant view of scripture for years.... but I really would like to hear his positive understanding--how to put tradition and the creeds in their proper authority, from his Reformed Protestant perspective.

[ksen]

Here we see the clear rejection of scripturally based structures of authority.

So what are these "Scripturally based structures of authority" that the "solo" scripturists are supposedly rejecting?

The authority of those who rule in the Church is rejected by placing the decisions of an ecumenical council of ministers on the same level as the words of any individual.

Does any ecumenical council of ministers have this "authority" the author keeps referring to? If not, then how do you know which ones are ok to reject?

[RnMomof7]

I would also like to see it taught..But I do not see this as a "distruction" of sola scriptura..but rather an examination of what it really means..

BTW to me is if it is not in scripture it can not be doctrinal . The historic creeds are scripitual..so I can adopt them easily...Now the Mormons have a negative test.. they say if you can not disprove it with the bible it is true..thus they have a heavenly mother making spirit babies because the bible does not say it is so..

[lockeliberty]

Many of the objections he brings up are exactly what Roman Catholics have criticized the evangelical/Protestant view of scripture for years.... but I really would like to hear his positive understanding--how to put tradition and the creeds in their proper authority, from his Reformed Protestant perspective.

The Reformed position takes neither the RCC position or the modern Evangelical position. The RCC adds tradition to the Apostolic tradition. The modern Evangelical removes all tradition including the Apostolic tradition and forms their own 'understanding' and makes that the tradition.

One has to understand that during the Patristic period most of the teachings on doctrine were through oral presentation. This did not preclude the Patristic writers from demanding a thorough scriptural foundation to the oral traditions passed down by the Apostles. The council of Trent added that special revelation of God was not contained within scripture alone. This is thoroughly repudiated by early Patristic writers. For example:

Tertullian says:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:

For Tertullian Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content...For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought...If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is.

The modern Evangelical independent Bible-believing only Christian, OTOH, wishes to divorce themselves from all tradition pretending to take a non-presuppositionalist approach to the Bible. This on its face is a silly proposition. How can one divorce themselves from their 21st century understandings and sinful nature? In their zeal to protect the Bible from 'man-made' traditions they fail to understand that tradition simply means teaching. In this way then they refute themselves by teaching a tradition of anti-tradition.

The Reformed position is that all scripture is to be interpreted based strictly on the Apostolic tradition. This necessitates a presuppositional approach that does not include the baggage of a 21st century understanding. The Reformed tradition does not refute any 'teaching' that supports the Apostolic tradition. If the 'teaching' supports the Apostolic tradition then that teaching is correct. Thus, we accept the creeds as the correct teachings of the Apostolic tradition. To say their is no Apostolic tradition is to be ignorant.

[ksen]

The Reformed position is that all scripture is to be interpreted based strictly on the Apostolic tradition.

What would be included in Apostolic tradition?

[RnMomof7]

Is this a reformed Presbyterian position as opposed to a "Reformed Baptist" position? I accept the early creeds and teachings only in so far as they reflect the bible..The bible is the standard to wich all teachings must be held..it is the measuring rod..(I consider myself Evangelical and Calvinist ..I do not see a contradiction in that)

[Tantumergo]

"Proponents of solo scriptura have deceived themselves into thinking that they honor the unique authority of Scripture. But unfortunately, by divorcing the Spirit-inspired Word of God from the Spirit-indwelt people of God, they have made it into a plaything and the source of endless speculation."

Sounds dangerously Roman to me!!

[Tantumergo]

"If the 'teaching' supports the Apostolic tradition then that teaching is correct."

You still come down to the same old problem in the final analysis - WHO decides whether any teaching supports the Apostolic tradition?

Also beware Tertullian - many of his writings date from his semi-Montanist and Montanist periods. The Montanists rejected the inspired nature of the OT, which doctrine, needless to say, was not part of the Apostolic tradition.

Do you know which writing that quote from Tertullian comes from?

[Tantumergo]

Ping!!!!!!!!!

A very interesting article by an Evangelical/Reformed thinker on sola/solo scriptura.

[Polycarp]

"an Evangelical/Reformed thinker" who doesn't lap up YOPIOS?

Will wonders never cease?

[Gophack]

Solo scriptura also undermines the legitimate ecclesiastical authority established by Christ. It negates the duty to submit to those who rule over you, because it removes the possibility of an authoritative teaching office in the Church. To place any kind of real hermeneutical authority in an elder or teacher undermines the doctrine of solo scriptura. Those adherents of solo scriptura who do have pastors and teachers to whom they look for leadership do so under the stipulation that the individual is to evaluate the leader’s teaching by Scripture first. What this means in practice is that the individual is to measure his teacher’s interpretation of Scripture against his own interpretation of Scripture. The playing field is leveled when neither the ecumenical creeds nor the Church has any more authority than the individual believer, but Christ did not establish a level playing field. He did not establish a democracy.

Skimmed the article from the link and this jumped out at me. Thought it was worth posting.

God bless.

[lockeliberty]

What would be included in Apostolic tradition?

The Apostolic tradition is the oral tradition handed down by the Apostles to the early church Fathers for the proper way to interpret scripture. The main emphasis of this hermeneutic is the ‘rule of Faith’. The rule of Faith, which was later reinstituted by Luther, is that scripture is to be interpreted as a continuity of God’s revelation throughout scripture. It necessarily takes an Christological presuppositional approach to scripture. That is, God’s revelation from the OT to the NT is a coherent testimony of his redemptive work through Jesus Christ.

It can be said then that the modern Dispensationalists no longer adheres to the ‘rule of Faith’ because they fracture the word of God into different administrations breaking up the continuity of scripture. The result of this fractured exegetical process is that the Dispensationalist hyper-literalize portions of scripture outside of the general scope of the ‘rule of Faith’. The Apostolic tradition necessitates against the inductive form of hermeneutic and insists on the more positive deductive form of hermeneutics. As a Church, we agree on the general rules of Faith outlined in the creeds and interpret scripture based on our common beliefs. To reject the creeds is to reject the ‘rule of Faith’ which rejects the Apostolic tradition.

[B-Chan]

"...the modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy. Each results in final authority being placed somewhere other than God and His Word. Unlike the Roman Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position, however, which invariably result in the autonomy of the Church, the modern Evangelical position inevitably results in the autonomy of the individual believer."

I accept the early creeds and teachings only in so far as they reflect the bible...I consider myself Evangelical and Calvinist ..I do not see a contradiction in that)

"I" ... "I" ... "I"! The classic Protestant 'papacy of one"! When one is a so-called Bible Christian, it's all about what I accept, what I consider to be truth, what contradictions I recognize, not about shutting up and letting someone else teach me what's right and wrong! As a Papacy of One, each Protestant can infallibly decide for him/herself what is Truth and what isn't...

...just like Adam and Eve. "...And you will be like God, knowing good and evil." [Gen 3:5 RSV]

The bible is the standard to wich all teachings must be held..it is the measuring rod.

Where is that teaching found in the Bible?

And to what measuring rod was the canon of Scripture itself held?

I'm so glad I'm not a "bibChr". The Bible can't save me; only Christ can. Christianity based upon the Bible instead of upon the living Christ would be thin gruel indeed. Being a highly fallible "ChrChr" is good enough for me; I'll leave it to Christ's Most Precious Body (the Church he founded here on Earth) to do the interpreting, and His Most Precious Blood to do the saving.

The author of this article is wrong about some things, but when he says that sola leads inevitably to every man becoming his own Pope, he's right on the money. I'm not smart (or holy) enough to be my own Pope.