Posted on 01/06/2003 8:09:14 AM PST by lockeliberty
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.
EVANGELICAL INDIVIDUALISM
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.
(Please go to the link for the rest of the Authors arguements.)
SUMMARY
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at the-highway.com ...
Luk 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LOL. And nothing has really changed since...
Thank you for your excellent posts. Ask them sometime why they ignore basic Scripture.
"Drink of it, *all* of you". They never reply when I ask them this.
You lie as well as your leader does.
Matthew 23:8-12 "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whoseover shall humble himself shall be exalted."
By the way, what is the meaning of the word "pope"? Papa? Father?
It appears the Jesus placed all of his followers on the same level with only ONE teacher, father and master over them, the triune God himself.
Rev. 22:8-9 "And I John am he that heard and say these things. And when I heard and say, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that showed me these things. And he saith unto me, See thou do it not: I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren the prophets, and with them that keep the words of this book: worship God."
Let's see, when we meet the pope aren't we supposed to kneel before him and kiss his hand? I've seen this many times on television. I would suspect that if bowing before an angel is not appropriate then neither is bowing before the pope (father) of the worldwide church of Rome, Italy.
But I suspect that there is some infallible roman church tradition that contradicts the above New Testament texts.
That's pathetic. Would like to point out exact how these principles are the same? In actuality, the LDS use the exact same method to prove their interpretations are correct as the Roman Catholic Church. Would you like to see the evidence?
Loved in the Eastern Orthodox church, pretty much ignored in the RC church, I believe. Emphasizing the unity of the Trinity and the equality of the Holy Spirit, and having said "all religious truth consists in mystery", he is not a likely candidate for the RC church to hold on high.
In our liturgy we say of the Trinity, "One in essence and undivided".
I'm not saying it, G-d is saying it in the Holy Word.
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 ??
Does your church, the Roman church, follow the Word of G-d ??
chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
A more brief version, from a protestant view and published in Christian History is here.
Some excerpts from the latter are below.
"In addition there was a significant difference between the educated. Byzantium was a civilization of great wealth and learning, and many educated laymen took an active interest in theology. The lay theologian has always been an accepted figure in Orthodoxy: some of the most learned Byzantine patriarchs—Photius, for example—were laymen before their appointment to the patriarchate.
In the West, mired in political confusion and cultural retreat, the only effective education that survived the early Middle Ages (often called the "dark" ages) was given solely to the clergy. Theology became the preserve of priests. Most of the laity were illiterate; most could not comprehend the nuances of theological discussion.
So theology took different paths, East and West. In general the Latin approach was more practical, the Greek more speculative. Latin thought was influenced by Roman law, while Greeks understood theology in the context of worship.
The dispute centered on the papal claims, which had become another growing issue between East and West. Among Eastern churches, there was a strong sense of equality among bishops because a number of city churches claimed to have been founded by an apostle....The Western church was seen less as a college of equals and more as a monarchy with the pope at its head.
In 1204 Western Crusaders were headed to Egypt on what is now considered the Fourth Crusade. They were persuaded to take a detour, through Constantinople, by two parties: first, by merchants in Venice (who were helping finance the crusade) who sought to destabilize the Byzantine situation for their own gain; second, by Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus, the dispossessed emperor, who wanted to restore himself and his father to the Byzantine throne. But the Western intervention did not go well, and eventually the Crusaders, disgusted with Byzantine politics, lost patience and pillaged the city.
The three-day sack of Constantinople is unparalleled in history. For 900 years, the great city had been the capital of Christian civilization. Works of art from ancient Greece and Byzantine masterpieces of exquisite craftsmanship spotted the city. Many pillagers, especially those from Venice, carried off these treasures to adorn the squares and churches of their towns.
Mobs of soldiers rushed down the streets and through the houses. They snatched everything that glittered and destroyed whatever they could not carry—neither monasteries nor churches nor libraries were spared. Estates and hovels alike were entered and wrecked. They paused only to murder or to rape or to break open wine-cellars for refreshment. Nuns were ravished in their convents. Bleeding women and children lay dying in the streets.
Eastern Christendom has never forgotten the slaughter and the pillage of those three terrible days in 1204. Historian Steven Runciman wrote, "The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword, and the sword was to sever Christendom." Resentment and indignation against Western sacrilege was emblazoned on Eastern hearts. "Even the Saracens [Muslims] are merciful and kind," protested one contemporary Orthodox historian, "compared with these men who bear the Cross of Christ on their shoulders."
And yet, take heed of the words used in this protestant publication to describe it.
The three-day sack of Constantinople is unparalleled in history.
All the more significant because of the many years which have passed and yet it remains "unparalleled in history".
He allowed Peter, Barnabas, and Paul to speak and then ruled on what to do.
The word is used for one who would judge or have the final say.
" 2919 krino (kree'-no);
properly, to distinguish, i.e. decide (mentally or judicially); by implication, to try, condemn, punish:
. 2919 krino-
5) to judge
a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong to be judged, that is, summoned to trial that one's case may be examined and judgment passed upon it
b) to pronounce judgment, to subject to censure, used of those who act the part of judges or arbiters in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others
6) to rule, to govern to preside over with the power of giving judicial decisions, because it was the prerogative of kings and rulers to pass judgment "
"it is clear to me that James as an Apostle, is just supporting Peter's speech(Acts15:7-11) "
Whether James is agreeing or supporting Peters words is not important. The context of the verse shows that James, not Peter had the authority to make the final decision.
You can twist this anyway you like to get it to fit the RCC teaching but the verse supports what many scholars outside the RCC claim: James (half brother of Jesus) was the leader of the early Christian Church
"In the Latin West, it is usually held that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and from the Son"; and the word filioque ("and from the Son) has been added to the Latin text of the Creed. Orthodoxy not only regards the filioque as an unauthorized addition-for it was inserted into the Creed without the consent of the Christian East-but it also considers that the doctrine of the "double procession", as commonly expounded, is theologically inexact and spiritually harmful."
"the Spirit of Truth Who proceeds from the Father" [John 15: 26]
If I'm not mistaken I think LDS, JW, fit more into the mode of the RCC, a hierarchy that claims to be the infallible channel between the Holy Spirit and man.
Most cults use this to keep the ignorant in line
LOL. So appropriate in light of the history of the early western (Roman) church I just posted above....
Just a note - filioque is translated "and the son"
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.