A critique of the evangelical doctrine of solo scriptura

In the 1980s and early 1990s, a controversy erupted among dispensationalists which came to be referred to as the Lordship Salvation controversy. On one side of the debate were men such as Zane Hodges1 and Charles Ryrie2 who taught a reductionistic doctrine of solafide which absolutized the word “alone” in the phrase “justification by faith alone” and removed it from its overall theological context. Faith was reduced to little more than assent to the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions. Repentance, sanctification, submission to Christ’s Lordship, love, and perseverance were all said to be unnecessary for salvation. Advocates of this position claimed that it was the classical Reformation position taught by Martin Luther and John Calvin. On the other side of the debate was John MacArthur who argued that these men were clearly abandoning the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone.3 In addition to the books written by the primary dispensationalist participants, numerous Reformed theologians wrote books and articles criticizing this alteration of the doctrine of solafide.4 A heated theological controversy began which continues in some circles even to this day.

Ironically, a similar drastic alteration of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura has occurred over the last 150 years, yet this has caused hardly a stir among the theological heirs of the Reformation, who have usually been quick to notice any threatening move against the Reformed doctrine of justification. So much time and effort has been spent guarding the doctrine of sola fide against any perversion or change that many do not seem to have noticed that the classical and foundational Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has been so altered that is virtually unrecognizable. In its place Evangelicals have substituted an entirely different doctrine. Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura.5

Modern Evangelicalism has done the same thing to sola scriptura that Hodges and Ryrie did to solafide. But unfortunately so little attention is paid to the doctrine of sola scriptura today that even among trained theologians there is confusion and ambiguity when the topic is raised. Contradictory and insufficient definitions of sola scriptura are commonplace not only among broadly Evangelical authors but among Reformed authors as well. In this chapter we shall examine this aberrant modern Evangelical concept of solo scriptura and explain why it is imperative that the Evangelical church recognize it to be as dangerous as the distorted concepts of solafide that are prevalent in the Church today.

The modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is nothing more than a new version of Tradition 0. Instead of being defined as the sole infallible authority, the Bible is said to be the “sole basis of authority”6 Tradition is not allowed in any sense; the ecumenical creeds are virtually dismissed; and the Church is denied any real authority. On the surface it would seem that this modern Evangelical doctrine would have nothing in common with the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrines of authority. But despite the very real differences, 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.

We have already seen that there is a major difference between the concept of Scripture and tradition taught by the classical Reformers and the concept taught by the Anabaptists and their heirs. The Anabaptist concept, here referred to as Tradition 0, attempted to deny the authority of tradition in any real sense. The Scriptures were considered not only the sole final and infallible authority, but the only authority whatsoever. The Enlightenment added the philosophical framework in which to comprehend this individualism. The individual reason was elevated to the position of final authority. Appeals to antiquity and tradition of any kind were ridiculed. In the early years of the United States, democratic populism swept the people along in its fervor.7 The result is a modern American Evangelicalism which has redefined sola scriptura in terms of secular Enlightenment rationalism and rugged democratic individualism.

Perhaps the best way to explain the fundamental problem with the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura would be through the use of an illustration to which many believers may be able to relate. Almost every Christian who has wrestled with theological questions has encountered the problem of competing interpretations of Scripture. If one asks a dispensationalist pastor, for example, why he teaches premillennialism, the answer will be, “Because the Bible teaches premillennialism.” If one asks the conservative Presbyterian pastor across the street why he teaches amillennialism (or postmillennialism), the answer will likely be, “Because that is what the Bible teaches.” Each man will claim that the other is in error, but by what ultimate authority do they typically make such a judgment? Each man will claim that he bases his judgment on the authority of the Bible, but since each man’s interpretation is mutually exclusive of the other’s, both interpretations cannot be correct. How then do we discern which interpretation is correct?

The typical modern Evangelical solution to this problem is to tell the inquirer to examine the arguments on both sides and decide which of them is closest to the teaching of Scripture. He is told that this is what sola scriptura means — to individually evaluate all doctrines according to the only authority, the Scripture. Yet in reality, all that occurs is that one Christian measures the scriptural interpretations of other Christians against the standard of his own scriptural interpretation. Rather than placing the final authority in Scripture as it intends to do, this concept of Scripture places the final authority in the reason and judgment of each individual believer. The result is the relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos that we see in modern Evangelicalism today.

A fundamental and self-evident truth that seems to be unconsciously overlooked by proponents of the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is that no one is infallible in his interpretation of Scripture. Each of us comes to the Scripture with different presuppositions, blind spots, ignorance of important facts, and, most importantly, sinfulness. Because of this we each read things into Scripture that are not there and miss things in Scripture that are there. Unfortunately, a large number of modern Evangelicals have followed in the footsteps of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), founder of the Disciples of Christ, who naively believed he could come to Scripture with absolutely no preconceived notions or biases. We have already mentioned Campbell’s naive statement, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.”8

The same ideas were expressed by Lewis Sperry Chafer, the extremely influential founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary. Chafer believed that his lack of any theological training gave him the ability to approach scriptural interpretation without bias. He said, “the very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind and to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches.”9 This, however, is simply impossible. Unless one can escape the effects of sin, ignorance, and all previous learning, one cannot read the Scriptures without some bias and blind spots. This is a given of the post-Fall human condition.

This naive belief in the ability to escape one’s own noetic and spiritual limitations led Campbell and his modern Evangelical heirs to discount any use of secondary authorities. The Church, the creeds, and the teachings of the early fathers were all considered quaint at best. The discarding of the creeds is a common feature of the modern Evangelical notion of solo scriptura. It is so pervasive that one may find it even in the writings of prominent Reformed theologians. For example, in a recently published and well-received Reformed systematic theology text, Robert Reymond laments the fact that most Reformed Christians adhere to the Trinitarian orthodoxy expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.10 He openly calls for an abandonment of the Nicene Trinitarian concept in favor of a different Trinitarian concept. One cannot help but wonder how this is any different than the Unitarians rejection of creedal orthodoxy. They call for the rejection of one aspect of Nicene Trinitarianism while Reymond calls for the rejection of another. Why is one considered heretical and the other published by a major Evangelical publishing house?

An important point that must be kept in mind is observed by the great nineteenth-century Princeton theologian Samuel Miller. He noted that the most zealous opponents of creeds “have been those who held corrupt opinions?”11 This is still the case today. The one common feature found in many published defenses of heretical doctrines aimed at Evangelical readers is the staunch advocacy of the modern Evangelical notion of solo scriptura with its concomitant rejection of the subordinate authority of the ecumenical creeds. The first goal of these authors is to convince the reader that sola scriptura means solo scriptura. In other words, their first goal is to convince readers that there are no binding doctrinal boundaries within Christianity.

In his defense of annihilationism, for example, Edward Fudge states that Scripture “is the only unquestionable or binding source of doctrine on this or any subject?”12 He adds that the individual should weigh the scriptural interpretations of other uninspired and fallible Christians against Scripture.’13 He does not explain how the Christian is to escape his own uninspired fallibility. The doctrinal boundaries of Christian orthodoxy are cast aside as being historically conditioned and relative.14 Of course, Fudge fails to note that his interpretation is as historically conditioned and relative as any that he criticizes.15

Another heresy that has been widely promoted with the assistance of the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is hyper-preterism or pantelism.16 While there are numerous internal squabbles over details, in general advocates of this doctrine insist that Jesus Christ returned in AD. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem and that at that time sin and death were destroyed, the Adamic curse was lifted, Satan was cast into the lake of fire, the rapture and general resurrection occurred, the final judgment occurred, mourning and crying and pain were done away with, and the eternal state began. The proponents of pantelism are even more vocal in their rejection of orthodox Christian doctrinal boundaries than Fudge. Ed Stevens, for example, writes,

Even if the creeds were to clearly and definitively stand against the preterist view (which they don’t), it would not be an over-whelming problem since they have no real authority anyway. They are no more authoritative than our best opinions today, but they are valued because of their antiquity.17

This is a hallmark of the doctrine of solo scriptura, and it is a position that the classical Reformers adamantly rejected. Stevens continues elsewhere,

We must not take the creeds any more seriously than we do the writings and opinions of men like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, Campbell, Rushdoony, or C.S. Lewis.18

Here we see the clear rejection of scripturally based structures of authority. 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. This is certainly the democratic way of doing things, and it is as American as apple pie, but it is not Christian. If what Mr. Stevens writes is true, then Christians should not take the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity any more seriously than we take some idiosyncratic doctrine of Alexander Campbell or C.S. Lewis. If this doctrine of solo scriptura and all that it entails is true, then the Church has no more right or authority to declare Arianism a heresy than Cornelius Van Til would have to authoritatively declare classical apologetics a heresy. Orthodoxy and heresy would necessarily be an individualistic and subjective determination.

Another pantelist, John Noe, claims that this rejection of the authority of the ecumenical creeds “is what the doctrine of sola scriptura is all about.”19 As we have demonstrated, this is manifestly untrue of the classical Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura. The doctrine of Scripture being espoused by these men is a doctrine of Scripture that is based upon anabaptistic individualism, Enlightenment rationalism, and democratic populism. It is a doctrine of Scripture divorced from its Christian context. It is no different than the doctrine of Scripture and tradition advocated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in numerous publications such as Should You Believe in the Trinity? in which individuals are urged to reject the ecumenical Christian creeds in favor of a new hermeneutical context.20 Yet the false idea that this doctrine is the Reformation doctrine pervades the thinking of the modern American Evangelical church. Unfortunately the widespread ignorance of the true Reformation doctrine makes it that much easier for purveyors of false doctrine to sway those who have been either unable or unwilling to check the historical facts.

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. If a proponent of solo scriptura is honest, he recognizes that it is not the infallible Scripture to which he ultimately appeals. His appeal is always to his on fallible interpretation of that Scripture. With solo scriptura it cannot be any other way, and this necessary relativistic autonomy is the fatal flaw of solo scriptura that proves it to be an unChristian tradition of men.

<> absolutely....Webster adduces the issue over the date on which to celebrate Easter as evidence for his arguement re Traditon. It is preposterous...and, if he knew the entire story, it would argue AGAINST his antipathy towards the Papacy and its authority

Some day, on another topic, I will show how the Holy Spirit led him to make this mistake in selecting this on which to build his case:) The facts about the issue PROVE Papal Primacy. But, that is for another day, another time<>

Nope. The Apocalypse refers to cities/countries that reject the Faith.

So the 7 churches are actually 7 countries and Jesus is speaking to all the people in those countries? Holy Cow, who taught you that? Oh yea, the Catholic Church. Let's just forget the fact that Jesus is speaking only to believers. Let's put our head in the sand and believe Jesus is only talking about countries that way I don't have to take personal responsibility. As long as I take my sacraments and say my "hail Marys", I'm safe.

hiyiyi

For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures,

Who chooses the most important points and by what authority?

we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.

Who is "we" and by what authority do they approve the "intention of those writings"?

Additionally, these statements do not necessarily support the notion of "scripture alone" which is really a sixteenth century innovation. Implicit in these commendations of Scripture are the following assumptions:

•The Church created, preserved, and canonized Scripture.
•The Church is the definitive authority regarding the interpretation of Scripture.
•The Church upholds Scripture and thereby upholds the idea that the Spirit would guide the Church into all truth, that the Deposit of Faith included Scripture and Tradition and that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth."

Catholicguy; jude24

j24>Penance is a good case study in tradition. There's no 1st-century record that I am aware of of penance

Cg><> Try the New Testament<>

Christ>22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

88 posted on 01/07/2003 6:46 AM MST by Catholicguy

Was that given only to the officers of a newly formed Corporation or was it given to all followers of the Christ ???

Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour!

chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>

<>. I thougt that a tautology. I thought it obvious he was speaking to those members of the Christian Catholic Church who had itchy ears for new doctrine (such as that of Calvin, Luther, Zwingle ect to come). The Nicoliates were just the prototypes of the 16th Century RTeformers.

Nevertheless, that does not mean His Christian Catholic Church failed anymore than does the selction of Judas render St. John nugatory...sheesh

I will note that as is usual in these exchanges, your side can only accuse and assert. There is NO support for your 16th Century Heresiarchs in the New Testament or the Earky Church Fathers.

There is NO evidence to suggest Jesus would establish a church that would teach error for thousands of generations and years.

Merely on the face of it, it is an evil sugggestion. It certainly isn't proveable.

But, I guess we are just supposed to accept such evil notions and quit the true Church.

There is an endless stream of evidence that individuals and communites would go awry and become heretcial and schismatic...that is right in the New Testament the Catholic Church wrote. But, there is no evidence to suggest what it is you must accept to justify YOPIOS<>

I have to admit that I got lost in the author's use of the term "sola scritura."

The author is making a distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. His point is that the Reformers did not reject the Apostolic tradition strictly held. The Reformers believed that the core beliefs, and only those core beliefs, were the lens in which we interpret scripture. This was because the Roman Catholic Church had replaced the Apostolic Tradition for traditionalism. Rick Wade comments:

In the 14th century tradition became a separate source of truth when it was realized that some traditions couldn't be proved from Scripture. There were now, then, two sources of revelation--Scripture and Church--tradition, rather than one source in two forms. What the Reformers wanted to do was not to pit Scripture against tradition per se and throw out the latter. They wanted to let go of man-made traditions and go back to the true apostolic tradition. "The sixteenth-century Reformers were cognizant of this distinction and highly valued the Tradition located in the Fathers as a means of interpreting biblical truth. . . . The Reformation was not about Scripture versus tradition but about reclaiming the ancient Tradition against distortions of that Tradition, or what eventually became a conflict of Tradition versus traditions."{19} They wanted to avoid citing the church fathers as authorities for doctrines or practices, which were incongruent with Scripture. They rejected the idea that the ancient Tradition had become secondary to the traditions of medieval Catholicism. Tradition with a small "t" had begun to interpret Tradition with a capital "T"; the Reformers thus emphasized Scripture as delivering true apostolic Tradition to argue against Rome's claim to authority.

The modern Evangelical, OTOH, wishes to remove all 'man-made' traditions. What they fail to realize is that the oral traditions handed down by the Apostles gave the church the core beliefs as an objective standard by which they could objectively evaluate those beliefs. Primarly this was done so that a person could come to an objective belief against the subjective 'special knowledge' of the Gnostics. If we remove the 'lens' of the creeds, as many Evangelicals do, the ability to interpret scripture becomes relavistic depending upon subjective criteria of their own personal understandings.

With his Institutes Calvin emerged as a champion of a rebellion against the papacy at a time when the different parties had fallen into quarrels among themselves. His was the first consistent and non-nationalist anti-Roman theology. It offered a kind of middle ground between the Lutherans and the Swiss Reformations. If Melancthon had been a stronger personality, the two movements might have grown together, since the German and Calvin were able to harmonize their views. The only real evidence I see of Calvin legal training lies in his ability to conciliate differing points of view among the members of his own party. But of course, there could be no real compromise with Rome.

"Back to the keys handed to Peter and only Peter...and not the top 12 or the to 100 friends or whatever...this was done for a reason and you shouldn't overlook the importance of this section of Scripture."

If these keys gave the authority to Peter why do these following verses show James as having the final say?

" Acts 15:1-2 1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. (NIV)

Acts 15:6 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. (NIV)

Acts 15:7-8 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. (NIV)

Acts 15:13 13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. (NIV)

Acts 15:19 19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. (NIV)

After Peter spoke James made the final decision. The word 'judgement' in verse 19 means authority to govern or rule. Why James instead of Peter?

Either the catholic church is wrong on this, or Peter never read his catechism to see how much power the catholics gave to him.

Which is it?

"Ah, amid reasoned and articulate discussions by Christians on the provocative posted article, Catholic and Separated Brethren alike, comes the dark cloud of Anti-Catholic bigotry in the form of the infamous Registered Nurse. "

Calling someone who doesn't share your views "separated" is a bigoted statement.

Because we don't parrot the heresy from Rome and wear it like a badge of honor, challenge you to verify your tradition with scripture,and take you to task when you can't , we are bigots.

Have mercy on us Holy and Enlightened One!

< You tell me..where they The Apostles (Bishops), together in a room, or were they the undifferentiated crowds in the marketplace?<>

148 posted on 01/07/2003 1:57 PM MST by Catholicguy

Apostles

<652> avpo,stoloj (apostolos)
Meaning: a messenger, one sent on a mission, an apostle
Origin: from 649
Usage: apostle(18), Apostle(1), apostles(52), apostles'(5), messenger(m)(1), messengers(m)(1),one who is sent(1).

Notes: (1) Lit., a called apostle (a) 1Co 1:1; 1Co 9:1; 2Co 1:1 (b) Act 9:15; Act 13:2; Gal 1:15 (c) Mar 1:14; Rom 15:16

Bishops

<1984> evpiskoph, (episkope)
Meaning: a visiting, an overseeing
Origin: from 1980a
Usage: office(m)(1), office of overseer(1) visitation(2).

Notes: (1) Or, bishop (a) 1Ti 1:15 (b) Act 20:28; Phi 1:1

Before they were infilled with the Holy Spirit, they were disciples ( followers) of the Christ

After the Holy Spirit infilled them they were sent(Apostles) as messenger to visit(Bishops) .

Here are some of the attributes of an Overseer (Bishop).

1 Timothy 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being
an overseer, [Traditionally bishop; also in verse 2] he desires a noble task.
1 Timothy 3:2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of
but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
1 Timothy 3:3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
1 Timothy 3:4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect.
1 Timothy 3:5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

Are your Bishops Married with children ??

chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>

Other Apostolic Traditions not found in the New Testament

As David King has pointed out in "Holy Scripture Vol 1" there are only three places where the Greek word translated "tradition" is used in a positive connotation in the NT:

1 Cor 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.[NAS95] Emphasis mine

Note that in all three cases the verb associated with delivering the "traditions" is in the past tense. David King correctly points out that these passages do not support the idea of an ongoing body or oral tradition. The traditions described here became the Scriptures!

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.