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.

Regretably, it seems as if we are talking past each other. This makes it evident that a common hermenutic is not a moot point for either you and i, or Paul and his hearers. We have operating here, two different frames of reference for scriptural interpretation, you with the framework of the Roman Magisteria, and me with a Sola Scriptura framework. In my humble opinion, the futility lies in the fact that you are presuming a Magisteria framework in order to prove a Magisteria (Magesteria ?) framework. To relate this to something we can both understand, it is like a Protestant presuming an inspired bible to prove an inspired bible to a skeptic. Is it not more logically consistent to attempt to argue a Roman framework by proving it from a sola Scriptura framework?

While there are common conclusions that can be reached by either framework, (Original sin, which you did not have to type since Protestants belive it and can derive the doctrine from a Sola Scriptura framework, and numerous Creeds that even in Protestant circles are called the "catholic" creeds...= universal creeds). i will now respond to your post within that sola scriptura framework.

Secondly, I take this historical office to be a type for a superior office to a superior Davidic King. Old Testament Davidic Kings who held the keys to the House of David are types for the superior New Testament King of the House of David who holds the keys to the House of David.

i am not certain what you meant here but i will examine it as written by you (please let me know if you misstated, it does not seem consistent with your usually consistent argumentation). We are told several things in the Isaiah 22 citation.
1)Eliakim will replace Shebna in office. (vs.15-20)
2)He (Eliakim) will be clothed with the robe, girdle, and government will be committed unto his hand.(vs.21)
3)He (Eliakim) shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. (vs.21)
4)The key to the House of David is laid upon his (Eliakim) sholder.
5)He shall open, none shall shut; he shall shut, none shall open. (vs.22)
6)God will fasten him (Eliakim)as a nail in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne in his father's house (vs.23)
7)God will hang all the glory of of his (Eliakim) father's house on him, the offspring, the issue, all vessels (large and small).(vs.24)
8)In that day, the nail that is fastened in the sure place will be removed (Eliakim), and the burdon that was upon him (see #7 above) will be cut off. (vs. 25)

Now i must ask, do you see this as a type of Peter, or a type of Christ, or both, or neither? (i will not insult your intelligence by offering you a false alternative falacy). If Christ, it is consistent with the Glory and burdons being placed upon him. If Peter, the same would be difficult to explain, as no one believed that Peter bore the burdons and Glory of the House of David, at least i have never heard of such a teaching in Catholicism. A further problem is just what is being cut off, the office, or the man? (neither or both are implied in my question, i don't like to type either :~)) Might this suggest that the office of vice-regent has ceased? The context of the passage certainly suggests this. i await an explanation, take your time, i certainly did. In light of this, i will postpone discussion of Revelation 3:7 since it hinges on your response.

i will now move on to your discussion of Matthew 16:19

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And i will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

i don't know what kind of knowlege of the Greek language you have but the structure for the phrases "will be bound/loosed" is called the periphrastic perfect. (as opposed to my spelling which is periphrastic imperfect :~)) The short of it is that the structure is better rendered will have been bound/loosed. This speaks of Peter ratifying what heaven has determined to be the judgement of the matter. So far, i don't believe in this instance that i have countered Catholic teaching on this matter.

Now, my question is: Is this proclamation exclusive to Peter? i turn now to the Matthew 18 passage that you quoted.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear tnem, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matthew 18:15-20 KJV, emphasis by me.

As per the underlined sections in this scripture, the subject of bind and loosed is plural. While undoutably Peter is among the disciples, it refers to all of them. This makes it doubtful that the binding and loosing provision or ratification (this structure is also a periphrastic perfect)is exclusive to Peter. In point of fact, it does not appear from the context of verses 19 and 20 that this binding and loosing is limited to the apostles, rather it is given to all believers.

I will move now to your question concerning I Timothy 3:15.

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the Pillar and ground of the truth. ITimothy 3:14-15 KJV.

i have no problem with your assertion, backed by this scripture that the church is the Pillar and ground of the truth. What i am wondering is why you would think this a reference to the church at Rome? This is a letter to Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus. There is no mention of the Church at Rome in this passage, or in the chapter, or even in the letter, and this i think is yet another source of misunderstanding caused by different interpretive frameworks.

It seems to me as if when the word "church" is spoken, that Catholics think something like "Roman Catholic Church". If so, it does not follow from the New Testament. It seems that the Roman Catholic needs to demonstrate from the Scriptures that:
1)The church of Rome exists. (easy enough to do, since Paul wrote an epistle to them!)
2)That the office of "keeper of the keys" continues to this day.
3)That the suceeding bishops of Rome were given the office of keeper of the keys as were Peter and the rest of the Disciples.(discussed above)
4)That these succeeding Roman bishops were given any authority over any other see in the New Testament.
5)That there is any warrent in the New Testament for the Preeminence of the Roman Church.
6)That the Roman Church was to excercise authority over any other New Testament Church founded by the apostles or their successors.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but these will do for now.

It seems to me as if we have questions to resolve before we can begin to settle the question of proper interpretation of the scriptures. Personally i am happy that although some on both sides of this thread have been a bit testy, you have not been so to me, and neither has any other supporter of the Roman position to the best of my recollection. i thank you for sticking to the issues and attempting to answer honestly and clearly. May God grant me the grace to do likewise.

Unless you fundamentally understand the extraordinary, mystical nature of sacramental life to the Catholic you cannot understand why it is so important to us and even if you cannot agree with this aspect of our faith at least have sensitivity in trying to understand the sacredness and reverence in which we hold the sacraments as that is where the pomp and procession and formal prayer came in.

Although I do not understand and cannot agree with the above I am concerned to have sensitivity to anyone with genuine faith in Christ as well as those seeking to learn more. My problem is that in most denominations, tradition often becomes more important than scripture. I think that is a normal human tendency. I heard one pastor say something to the effect that usually our tradition doesn't go back far enough. Ususally back to the way our parents or grandparents did something or perhaps some event in history. But the true tradition goes all the way back to scripture.

I have learned from personally experience that it is safer to distort scripture than try to change people's religious traditions.

I grew up in a religious environment that took very seriously the sacraments of baptism and communion. But the sacraments are not ends in themselves but means pointing to Christ and the one sacrifice on the cross.

What I find central in Scripture is the centrality of Christ and his authority exercised through the work of the Holy Spirit and the word of the Gospel message. I do not think it is biblical to cover this with layers of tradition, pomp, ceremony or visual aids as though Christ needs all the help we can give him.

I am not arguing for individualistic intepretation of scripture. But I am deeply convinced that Christ by his Holy Spirit will, as he promised, lead belivers in the truth of his word so that they will, as Peter encourages, continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

It is not any personal human authority that comforts me, but Christ himself through his Word of truth. II Corinthians 1:3-7

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.