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.

Aquinas' teaching on natural theology does not have to do with intelligence. Btw, it is also something that we Protestants (at least in contemporary Reformed circles) agree upon.

Well, I certainly defer to your greater knowledge but I think even within contemporary Reformed circles there is disagreement on this. I'm not the one to delinate the difference between Aquinas' natural theology and what is known within the Reformed tradition as General revelation but certainly it is an very important difference.

Hodges and Warfield of the old Princeton Theology certainly agreed with Aquinas that natural man had a religous nature and the ability to understand God through this natural religous nature(reason). Contrast that to Kuyper and Berkhof who believed that all true knowledge of God is possessed only within the Christian community, that Faith and Reason must be clearly delinated, that all knowledge of God originates from God and not from our own natural reason.

Since I agree with Kuyper and Berkhof on the important distinction between Faith and Reason it seems to follow that those who believe that Faith is not a necessary presuppositional principal for true knowledge of God, especially in a monarchial form of government, then the overriding deciding factor on power within that form of government should be based upon the individual with the greatest Reason. I agree that intelligence is not necessarily the same as reason but certainly is included with and necessary for reason. You'll have to show me where my logic breaks down and makes my hyposthesis into a false premise.

"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."
Good. Cuz popes arent scriptural.
Oh, really?
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."[Matt 16:17-19]
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled. [Source]
1. The papacy is scriptural, because the apostolic succession is scriptural.
2. Scripture alone does not contain the complete deposit of God's Word.
3. The doctrine of sola scriptura is not found in scripture.
4. The canon of scripture itself is the product of Tradition.

5. Every Christian follows some pope -- either himself, the one behind his church's pulpit, or the Pope of Rome.

Recently this debate is going on within Reformed circles. The old School as you point out was divided. There were two schools of apologetical thought that was formed out of this division. The first is called presuppositionalism, and was championed by Cornelius Van Till. The name is descriptive. One presumes the existence of God and that the bible is God's revelation to mankind. From that the apologia is brought out. i suspect that you can see the logical flaw...the entire premise is circular, assuming God to prove God, using the bible to prove the bible. This has been the majourity report of Reformed Christianity since old Princton split.

There is a "back to the future" revolution going on at the moment. A student of Van Till named John Gerstner and two students of his, RC Sproul, and Art Lindsley examined the argunents, and the history of the Classical (sometimes called evidential) apologetic, and have confronted the very basis of the Van Till apologetic. The results and formulation is outlined in the book CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS by the three authors mentioned above.

The classical method supposedly fell out of favour as a response to Immanuel Kant, who supposedly destroyed the traditional theological proofs in Critique of Pure Reason. yet no one at the time ever seemed to question whether or not Kant was wrong. Even from a Presuppositional standpoint the question remains: If The Psalmist is right in Psalm 19, and Paul is right in Romans 1, THEN KANT MUST BE WRONG. i see the presuppositional apologetic as an accomodation to the world spirit, and (with apologies to Dr. Van Till), a spirit of sloth on the part of the Christian community who was not willing to do the work to provide a rebuttal to the work of Kant.

Some never did cave in. As i pointed out in my last post, Edwards maintained a classical apologetic, i believe that Charles Hodge did also. I cannot speak for J Gresham Machen, or Donald Gray Barnhouse, but i know that a student of Barnhouse, a certain Walter Martin, was an evidentialist.

Kuyper and Berkof run into dangerous territory by suggesting that only the Christian community has all true knowlege of God, since it suggest that, contrary to Romans 1, man DOES have an excuse. i do agree that faith and reason have separate functions and boundaries.

i don't know if that was any help to you. i have offered only a cursury comment on the subject, as space and time and my knowlege of how to place a link to another site do not permit me to exhasustively, (if that were possible!) answer.

Well, if I'm not mistaken I believe those in Kuyper, Berkhof, and Van Til camp would reference Proverbs 9:10.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

This is a classical example of parrellism in Hebrew poetry. Yahweh, (The LORD or Jehovah), in the first part relates to God's immanence or our ability to comprehend God through nature. Qedoshim ,(The Holies or the Holy One), relates to God's transcendence or the absolute otherness of God.

I think the arguement that follows is that to even approach the Qedoshim side of God requires Faith. Also, it appears to me that evidentialism and presuppositionalism are not mutually exclusive. As you noted in a previous post for a tautology to be correct it must be proven outside the system. So, if we use an evidentialist approach to prove the validity of the Bible we are allowed within the tautology.

The Apostolic Tradition, as I have been trying to contend, is the presuppositional framework with which we begin our interpretation of scripture. As William DiPuccio states:

In this instance, the early Fathers seem to have fully grasped the notion that our understanding of Christianity and the Bible is conditioned by a priori ideas and commitments which originate in the community and culture. Hence, they made no pretensions about epistemological neutrality or detached objectivity. For them the tradition of the church constituted the only legitimate sphere of Biblical interpretation.

But, how then can we demonstrate that the church's oral tradition is true over/against the oral tradition of the gnostics? Here we must turn to that unpopular Romish concept that burns in the ears of so many Protestants: Apostolic succession. Setting aside later alterations and/or distortions of this idea, the original concept of apostolic succession (which included deacons or presbyters as well as bishops) was not so much a succession of ordination, as a succession of living faith and truth as these are embodied in the Scriptures and the ancient Rule of Faith.[12]

And later on he notes:

So the authority and veracity of the Rule was not established by philosophical debate over first principles, but by the continuity of history. Hence, only a historical argument can break the deadlock over first principles. Like us, the early church operated in a society of philosophical pluralism. While apologists such as Quadratus, Aristides, Justin, and Athenagoras, successfully engaged pagan philosophers on their own ground, objectively speaking, the first principles of Christian faith, like the resurrection itself, rest finally upon the faithfulness and authority of the apostolic witness.

So the question becomes one of tautology and Dipuccio answers it:

But upon first consideration, the reasoning of the Fathers seems to be circular since they proved the Scriptures from the Rule and proved the Rule by appealing to Scripture. This tautology was broken in two ways: First, as already mentioned, unlike the NT Scriptures, the Rule is established and transmitted solely by apostolic succession and oral tradition. So, though the Rule may be identical in content to the Bible, it was handed down orally by historical succession. It is the viva vox the living voice of what the Scriptures are in writing. Or, as Yves Congar has pointed out, the same tradition is manifested in two different forms. Second, the Rule marks only the essential doctrines of Scripture and was never intended to comprehend its entire contents. As already mentioned, the Rule functioned in a way similar to Luther's Christological principle by ordering and unfolding the entire corpus of faith.[17]
Hermeneutics, Exegesis, and the Rule of Faith: An Ancient Key to a Modern Question

Thus, I would contend, that presuppostionalism is a necessary formulation within the Christian church but not mutually exclusive from evidentialism.

"Well, if I'm not mistaken I believe those in Kuyper, Berkhof, and Van Til camp would reference Proverbs 9:10."

This is precisely the point that was made earlier, Van Till had to presuppose the bible as God's revelation to man in order to use it as his starting point. To the heathen in the first century, it would be a matter of question begging. To the skeptic of today, it is question begging.

To be certain, all systems of epistomology are presuppositional, it is necessary to find universal presuppositions. Gerstner, Lindsley and Sproul found three:

1) The Law of Non-contradiction.
2) The Law of Causuality.
3) The basic reliability of human senses.

Without these three basic presuppositions, man can have no basis for knowlege at all, let alone knowlege of God. i do agree that a presuppositional apologetic is useful...why reinvent the wheel? There are matters within the Roman Catholic Magisterium that are articles of faith in Protestantism, simply because they are derived from what both factions agree upon as the Apostolic Tradition. There are other Articles that are not, since there is no agreement that the derivation was within the Apostolic Tradition. The main point of this thread is not whether there is an Apostolic Tradition, it is rather what does that Tradition entail. Catholics and Protestants do not disagree on all points.

The main point of this thread is not whether there is an Apostolic Tradition, it is rather what does that Tradition entail.

Agreed. It's patently obvious to everyone except a Roman Catholic that because scriptures prove the Apostolic Tradition that any tradition outside of scripture is necessarily false.

As to our side discussion I can only hazard to guess that Kuyper and Berkhof would not agree with Van Til's strict presuppositionalism. However, I would still agree with Kuyper's 'sacred theology' that understanding the Transcendent God necessarily entails a "fear of the Lord". Thus, I would contend, that the external conditions you posited are secondary to the first principle of Faith posited by Berkhof.

BTW, this is how to post a link. <a href="?">??</a> (?=the address of the page, ??=title of link)

"However, I would still agree with Kuyper's 'sacred theology' that understanding the Transcendent God necessarily entails a "fear of the Lord". "

And i would agree, if one can first establish the existence of this Transcendent God. There is one school of thought on natural revelation that could establish such a basis, namely what has been called "immediate imputation".

Immediate imputation is nothing more than saying that God has "hard wired" us with knowlege of His existence without the use of a media such as the creation. The theory has never been taken seriously by either Catholics or Protestants. Perhaps it would be of use on the Infant Baptism thread, that is now almost 950 posts long, but i am not certain that such an idea can be proven.

Without immediate imputation, one is still stuck with presupposing God to prove God, and one thing that the presuppositionalist would readily admit is that the God revealed in scripture is not irrational so as to revel in circular reasoning. Once the fact of God's revelation to man is established, our reason must submit to that revelation, trusting that finitus non caprax infinitum...The finite does not comprehend the Infinite.

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.